Why do some take belief in Global Warming as a political issue?

[skookerasbil]

Another solar company goes belly up yesterday. fAiL..........this is a fucking joke. Only cost the taxpayers 2.1 billion this time.
There needs to be an investigation of the administration. This green energy scam is government corruption at its highest level.

Solar company bankrupt despite 'win-win' DOE loan | Campaign 2012 | Washington Examiner


Cant wiat 'til lNovember when all this lefty bullshit goes belly up.

 

[Mr.Nick]

Of course the climate changes - that is a fact but to pin "climate change" on humans is total bullshit.

There is no evidence to support that nonsense and those that champion the AGW myth only do so out of authoritarian intent. They want to control the world and they want to be on the soap box while it happens - they want to be the elite...

Those behind the AGW myth want money and power...

You people think madmen like Stalin or Hitler come around once a decade??? hahaha think again. Millions of people with power and money possess those complexes....

Of course they all come claiming to save the world from an injustice or apocalypse...

Evil people with evil intent gain power by scaring you into supporting their agenda...

Those who tell the truth are always ignored because their story isn't as fabulous...

 

[westwall]

Let's see... there are more Bald Eagles now too. And rather than see these sorts of things as the results of massive efforts to restore threatened and endangered habitats and species, you actually ignore all that and use the results of these massive efforts to say : "see....I told you the polar bears would be fine".... yeah dumb ass... cause we have made monumental efforts to preserve their habitat and species.

You are a blathering fool.

Dude: Hey westwall, why do you have a banana in you ear?

westwall: to keep the crocodiles away.

Dude: There aren't any crocodiles around here.

westwall: See, it's working. A banana in your ear keeps crocodiles away. I'm a scientist!

Yes, it is all environmentalists who have saved the animals. Only that isn't true is it. No, the vast majority of animal preservation has been accomplished by HUNTERS! The American Bison exists today because way back in 1890 a buffalo hunter decided to save the last herd he found. All of the animals we have today came from that little herd.

Same goes for most of the duck species. You can thanks Ducks Unlimited for their survival.
Rocky Mountain Elk? Hunters. How about Africa. WHich countries have the strongest populations of elephant and rhinocerous? You guessed it, those that allow hunting.

You see dear boy, hunters have done more to preserve animal life than ANY environmental group.

Yes Fitz...hunters are major contributors to conservation of habitat and species in many cases. I am guessing that you don't really pay attention to my post or links. I AM A HUNTER dumb ass. I founded and direct a conservation group comprised of hunters. Ducks Unlimited chief biologist, Dale Humberg, developed the survey for our shot shell program.

What the hell is your point? I have told you from the start that I am not an extremist. Yet you insist that you must sort people into one of the two boxes that your tiny brain can define.

I am not a PETA or Green Peace type. I am a conservationist, I have not addressed any of this is an extreme manner. You assholes got your panties in a wad over a couple photographs that show human impact and went on your preprogrammed denial speech.

Now...as far as westwalls dumbass point that since the 70s when environmentalist starting carrying on about polar bears, the population has increased, yes it has... BECAUSE of REGULATIONS. There were a couple of distinct laws and treaties with Canada and the USSR that outlawed shooting Polar bears from boats. That alone probably saved the polar bear from extincxion FROM HUNTERS.

Passenger pigeons? HUNTED to extinction.

Now Fitzy, my man, this tendency of your to either say "exhibit A" is either all good or all bad is just STUPID. Yes, hunters and hunters groups have done all sorts of good things. But they also have hunted species into extinction. There are no absolutes in this mess, there is a middle road.

But you keep insisting that everything be classed as "hunter good" "environmentalist bad" so your tiny pea brain can handle it. And by the way, I've lifted my moratorium on name calling: YOU'RE A DUMB ASS.

You can allways tell when it is a olfraud sock puppet, they all, invariably when their arguments are pounded into the dirt, revert to calling people "dumb ass" in fit of childish rage.

Thanks for the laugh olsweetwillytrakarfraud!

 

[Sweet Willy]

Yes, it is all environmentalists who have saved the animals. Only that isn't true is it. No, the vast majority of animal preservation has been accomplished by HUNTERS! The American Bison exists today because way back in 1890 a buffalo hunter decided to save the last herd he found. All of the animals we have today came from that little herd.

Same goes for most of the duck species. You can thanks Ducks Unlimited for their survival.
Rocky Mountain Elk? Hunters. How about Africa. WHich countries have the strongest populations of elephant and rhinocerous? You guessed it, those that allow hunting.

You see dear boy, hunters have done more to preserve animal life than ANY environmental group.

Yes Fitz...hunters are major contributors to conservation of habitat and species in many cases. I am guessing that you don't really pay attention to my post or links. I AM A HUNTER dumb ass. I founded and direct a conservation group comprised of hunters. Ducks Unlimited chief biologist, Dale Humberg, developed the survey for our shot shell program.

What the hell is your point? I have told you from the start that I am not an extremist. Yet you insist that you must sort people into one of the two boxes that your tiny brain can define.

I am not a PETA or Green Peace type. I am a conservationist, I have not addressed any of this is an extreme manner. You assholes got your panties in a wad over a couple photographs that show human impact and went on your preprogrammed denial speech.

Now...as far as westwalls dumbass point that since the 70s when environmentalist starting carrying on about polar bears, the population has increased, yes it has... BECAUSE of REGULATIONS. There were a couple of distinct laws and treaties with Canada and the USSR that outlawed shooting Polar bears from boats. That alone probably saved the polar bear from extincxion FROM HUNTERS.

Passenger pigeons? HUNTED to extinction.

Now Fitzy, my man, this tendency of your to either say "exhibit A" is either all good or all bad is just STUPID. Yes, hunters and hunters groups have done all sorts of good things. But they also have hunted species into extinction. There are no absolutes in this mess, there is a middle road.

But you keep insisting that everything be classed as "hunter good" "environmentalist bad" so your tiny pea brain can handle it. And by the way, I've lifted my moratorium on name calling: YOU'RE A DUMB ASS.

Well it seems to me that when it comes to conservation of a wildlife, you are a tad more rational than your views on climate and the weather.

See, here's the key difference. Climate is not the same as conservation. Climate affects conservation, and conservation cannot affect climate. Never has been. Never will be. If you wish to talk about wildlife conservation and habitat usage, then we might find some common ground.

I am very aware, even as a non-hunter the importance of man's role as a controlling factor of wildlife and our need to do so responsibly. But developing less hazardous bird shot and restocking programs deal in a subject unrelated to the entire issue in this threat in which you eviscerated your own credibility for the sake of a single word and philosophical principle. I know about men firing cannon into the air loaded with birdshot to take out whole whopping lots of carrier pigeons and the foolish destruction of the Dodo. The point is, that we have learned over time about that, and honestly I think a lot of the conservation efforts in this land have gone a long way in the right direction, at least by conservation groups and NOT environmental radical groups that want to wall off nature keeping it pure and sacred.

So there's this bunny trail of a subject that has nothing to do with AGW and it's political ramifications, or the real topic of the discussion. Or do you want to be ignored for more stupid linguistic games?

Where have I spoken to climate Fitz? This IS THE PROBLEM. I haven't stated any position on climate or AGW. in fact, I have repeatedly told you that I specifically do not support AGW theory. I've said it a dozen times .... I DON'T KNOW. YOU DON'T KNOW EITHER.

I have presented a few photographs that demonstrate mans ability to impact his environment in large scale AND I have brought up the dust bowl, which was a man made event that DID cause a climate phenomenon.

None of this makes me someone deserving of this ridiculous bashing and pigeon holing from the moment I entered this topic. You people are completely and utterly unreasonable. If someone is not towing your anti - environmental line, you imagine that they are far left eco terrorist and you begin your scripted, talking points, political baloney.

I have not taken any position on climate change. YOU have decided what YOU want to believe I think about climate change because YOU don't want to have to THINK or listen to a reasonable person. It threatens the extreme positions you adopt as political tools to fight useless battles of pig headed dumb asses on each side. NONE OF YOU ever learn a damned thing from each other. You're too busy bashing each other's heads in. When someone shows up, both sides hold him at hyperbolic gun point and ask which side he is on... if the poor guy is in the middle he gets shot at from both sides.

It's a damned joke. YOu all know that extremes are a HUGE part of the problem in the country, but rather than moderate, you continue to move to extremes as if it will counter the other extremes.... to make it short... yes, this place is full of dumb asses.

And westwall, you can stop the sock puppet shit. I just gave up links to my actual, real life identity. There is no mystery left. I am who i say I am and I do not have other identities.

And yes, I'm tired of playing nice and trying to raise the level of courtesy on your forum. All that got me was a bunch of assholes bashing me for being polite.... asshole. If you're a scientist, I'm Atila the Hun. Dumb ass.

 

[Sweet Willy]

Yes, they ahve all been predicting the END OF THE WORLD AS WE KNOW IT for what two and a half decades now. I see everything is pretty much the same. Well that's not exactly true. When they started preaching their mantra, there were far fewer polar bears and other critters out there. So the claim that animals are going extinct at a increased rate is FALSE!

In other words, how many tipping points have those very same scientific groups been warning us about for so long now? 20-30? Tipping point after tipping point has passed and guess what...........NOTHING HAS CHANGED.

That qualifies as an EPIC FAIL.

As only the religious zealots can!

Let's see... there are more Bald Eagles now too. And rather than see these sorts of things as the results of massive efforts to restore threatened and endangered habitats and species, you actually ignore all that and use the results of these massive efforts to say : "see....I told you the polar bears would be fine".... yeah dumb ass... cause we have made monumental efforts to preserve their habitat and species.

You are a blathering fool.

Dude: Hey westwall, why do you have a banana in you ear?

westwall: to keep the crocodiles away.

Dude: There aren't any crocodiles around here.

westwall: See, it's working. A banana in your ear keeps crocodiles away. I'm a scientist!

What monumental efforts have we made to preserve polar bears and their habitat?

And no, fear-mongering blog posts and documentaries aren't actually an effort.

Dave... you are barely worth the keystrokes, as you appear to be at least the assistant to the head dumb ass and probably in training to take the job.

BUT...

In 1973 or 74 there was a maritime law passed that outlawed the taking of polar bears from the water. You could no longer shoot polar bears while they were trapped out in the open on the sea ice. It was kind of like shooting fish in a barrel. Also, there were treaties on bag limits and seasons between the US and Russia and Canada.... I mean shit man... this is all a matter of record. At the time, Alaska and much of Canada were still "wild west" type places where big game hunters showed up and slaughtered animals just for the hell of it, and as many as they could.... just like still happens just about anywhere they can get away with it. It was early 70's in Alaska when we put a stop to "safari" style hunting up there where polar bears were taken in unlimited numbers by unlimited means.

Look it up dumb ass. I'm not doing your home work and I have ceased to give a rat's ass about you or any of these other knuckle dragging idiots on this forum. If I did look it up you'd try to tell me that ice will burn me or bears have feathers or some other stupid shit. YOu dumb asses spent days trying to tell me that the sun was cold and you think I'm going to present you with facts now?

I'm going to just do like you guys and sling mud and call names now. Facts are rare animals in this joint and you've got no respect for them anyway.... the sun is cold.... yeah right, dumb ass. Go play in the street or something.

 

[Robert_Stephens]

I believe the science of climate change and global warming is pretty solid. But I've been called a liberal or democrat/progressive on that alone.

Now, I never said I think Al Gore's carbon trading scam or whatever was the best solution, just that I believe the science....

So why is this belief treated as if reflects on my political leanings one way or another by so many others?

Your post is sound and your statement equally so. The truth is that this is the 14th warming period with ice melt, polar decline of ice, mass infusion of fresh water into the oceans with a "Day After Tomorrow' plausible, decline in winter tamps and storms in the northern hemisphere, longer winters, hotter than average summers everywhere, etc, over the last 30,000 years.

The entire global impact of man and his effect on the biome is less than .7%.

But, it sells Al Gore crap and it it effects emotions and it "feels" good to be green, well, there they go. And thus, of course it becomes political and then its a whirlwind.

Tragic but true.

And why you have been not only attacked for your opinion but pigeon holed as well. I'm not surprised.

Good post.

Robert

 

[westwall]

Let's see... there are more Bald Eagles now too. And rather than see these sorts of things as the results of massive efforts to restore threatened and endangered habitats and species, you actually ignore all that and use the results of these massive efforts to say : "see....I told you the polar bears would be fine".... yeah dumb ass... cause we have made monumental efforts to preserve their habitat and species.

You are a blathering fool.

Dude: Hey westwall, why do you have a banana in you ear?

westwall: to keep the crocodiles away.

Dude: There aren't any crocodiles around here.

westwall: See, it's working. A banana in your ear keeps crocodiles away. I'm a scientist!

What monumental efforts have we made to preserve polar bears and their habitat?

And no, fear-mongering blog posts and documentaries aren't actually an effort.

Dave... you are barely worth the keystrokes, as you appear to be at least the assistant to the head dumb ass and probably in training to take the job.

BUT...

In 1973 or 74 there was a maritime law passed that outlawed the taking of polar bears from the water. You could no longer shoot polar bears while they were trapped out in the open on the sea ice. It was kind of like shooting fish in a barrel. Also, there were treaties on bag limits and seasons between the US and Russia and Canada.... I mean shit man... this is all a matter of record. At the time, Alaska and much of Canada were still "wild west" type places where big game hunters showed up and slaughtered animals just for the hell of it, and as many as they could.... just like still happens just about anywhere they can get away with it. It was early 70's in Alaska when we put a stop to "safari" style hunting up there where polar bears were taken in unlimited numbers by unlimited means.

Look it up dumb ass. I'm not doing your home work and I have ceased to give a rat's ass about you or any of these other knuckle dragging idiots on this forum. If I did look it up you'd try to tell me that ice will burn me or bears have feathers or some other stupid shit. YOu dumb asses spent days trying to tell me that the sun was cold and you think I'm going to present you with facts now?

I'm going to just do like you guys and sling mud and call names now. Facts are rare animals in this joint and you've got no respect for them anyway.... the sun is cold.... yeah right, dumb ass. Go play in the street or something.

Actually, the Treaty was ratified in 1976 and made it illegal to kill polar bears from aircraft or large motor boats and they could not be killed in areas where they were not hunted by traditional methods in the past. This had the effect of creating a de facto preserve in the far north where the bears could breed.

 

[Sweet Willy]

What monumental efforts have we made to preserve polar bears and their habitat?

And no, fear-mongering blog posts and documentaries aren't actually an effort.

Dave... you are barely worth the keystrokes, as you appear to be at least the assistant to the head dumb ass and probably in training to take the job.

BUT...

In 1973 or 74 there was a maritime law passed that outlawed the taking of polar bears from the water. You could no longer shoot polar bears while they were trapped out in the open on the sea ice. It was kind of like shooting fish in a barrel. Also, there were treaties on bag limits and seasons between the US and Russia and Canada.... I mean shit man... this is all a matter of record. At the time, Alaska and much of Canada were still "wild west" type places where big game hunters showed up and slaughtered animals just for the hell of it, and as many as they could.... just like still happens just about anywhere they can get away with it. It was early 70's in Alaska when we put a stop to "safari" style hunting up there where polar bears were taken in unlimited numbers by unlimited means.

Look it up dumb ass. I'm not doing your home work and I have ceased to give a rat's ass about you or any of these other knuckle dragging idiots on this forum. If I did look it up you'd try to tell me that ice will burn me or bears have feathers or some other stupid shit. YOu dumb asses spent days trying to tell me that the sun was cold and you think I'm going to present you with facts now?

I'm going to just do like you guys and sling mud and call names now. Facts are rare animals in this joint and you've got no respect for them anyway.... the sun is cold.... yeah right, dumb ass. Go play in the street or something.

Actually, the Treaty was ratified in 1976 and made it illegal to kill polar bears from aircraft or large motor boats and they could not be killed in areas where they were not hunted by traditional methods in the past. This had the effect of creating a de facto preserve in the far north where the bears could breed.

Right... but your previous statement regarding the history of this didn't give any credit to conservation efforts or sanctuaries, preserves, hunting regulations.... none of that. You took the increased bear population numbers, that are in all likely hood due to conservation practice during a time when hunting pressure was at a break neck pace, and instead decided they were a good tool for your political crusade against the AGW crowd.

Do you think it's a good idea to take the hard fought results of conservationist and discredit them because it makes for a good tool for YOUR argument?

You sir, are the definition of a TOOL.

 

[Sweet Willy]

The Marine Mammal Protection Act was enacted in 1972 which forbid the taking of marine mammals, including hunting them. This included polar bears.

Do you think that the fact that Polar bear hunting STOPPED IN IT'S TRACKS in Alaska in 1972 has anything to do with increased polar bear numbers?

Of course it does.

The Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 (MMPA) was the first act of Congress to call specifically for an ecosystem approach to natural resource management and conservation. MMPA prohibits the taking of marine mammals, and enacts a moratorium on the import, export, and sale of any marine mammal, along with any marine mammal part or product within the United States. The Act defines "take" as "the act of hunting, killing, capture, and/or harassment of any marine mammal; or, the attempt at such." The MMPA defines harassment as "any act of pursuit, torment or annoyance which has the potential to either: a. injure a marine mammal in the wild, or b. disturb a marine mammal by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, which includes, but is not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering." The MMPA provides for enforcement of its prohibitions, and for the issuance of regulations to implement its legislative goals.
Contents


Authority to manage the MMPA was divided between the Secretary of the Interior through the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), and the Secretary of Commerce, which is delegated to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Subsequently, a third Federal agency, the Marine Mammal Commission (MMC), was established to review existing policies and make recommendations to the Service and the NOAA better implement the MMPA. Coordination between these three Federal agencies is necessary in order to provide the best management practices for marine mammals.

Under the MMPA, the Service is responsible for ensuring the protection of sea otters and marine otters, walruses, polar bears, three species of manatees, and dugongs. The NOAA was given responsibility to conserve and manage pinnipeds including seals and sea lions and cetaceans such as whales and dolphins.

You're an opportunistic hack westwall.

 

[westwall]

Dave... you are barely worth the keystrokes, as you appear to be at least the assistant to the head dumb ass and probably in training to take the job.

BUT...

In 1973 or 74 there was a maritime law passed that outlawed the taking of polar bears from the water. You could no longer shoot polar bears while they were trapped out in the open on the sea ice. It was kind of like shooting fish in a barrel. Also, there were treaties on bag limits and seasons between the US and Russia and Canada.... I mean shit man... this is all a matter of record. At the time, Alaska and much of Canada were still "wild west" type places where big game hunters showed up and slaughtered animals just for the hell of it, and as many as they could.... just like still happens just about anywhere they can get away with it. It was early 70's in Alaska when we put a stop to "safari" style hunting up there where polar bears were taken in unlimited numbers by unlimited means.

Look it up dumb ass. I'm not doing your home work and I have ceased to give a rat's ass about you or any of these other knuckle dragging idiots on this forum. If I did look it up you'd try to tell me that ice will burn me or bears have feathers or some other stupid shit. YOu dumb asses spent days trying to tell me that the sun was cold and you think I'm going to present you with facts now?

I'm going to just do like you guys and sling mud and call names now. Facts are rare animals in this joint and you've got no respect for them anyway.... the sun is cold.... yeah right, dumb ass. Go play in the street or something.

Actually, the Treaty was ratified in 1976 and made it illegal to kill polar bears from aircraft or large motor boats and they could not be killed in areas where they were not hunted by traditional methods in the past. This had the effect of creating a de facto preserve in the far north where the bears could breed.

Right... but your previous statement regarding the history of this didn't give any credit to conservation efforts or sanctuaries, preserves, hunting regulations.... none of that. You took the increased bear population numbers, that are in all likely hood due to conservation practice during a time when hunting pressure was at a break neck pace, and instead decided they were a good tool for your political crusade against the AGW crowd.

Do you think it's a good idea to take the hard fought results of conservationist and discredit them because it makes for a good tool for YOUR argument?

You sir, are the definition of a TOOL.

No, I don't think that the work of conservationists should be usurped for political gain by ANY group. Something the lefties began doing decades ago. And yes, I am a tool. A tool devoted to preserving the proper and ethical application of science.

You wipe your ass with it however. As is plain to see by your petulant posts.

But thanks for playing!

 

[westwall]

The Marine Mammal Protection Act was enacted in 1972 which forbid the taking of marine mammals, including hunting them. This included polar bears.

Do you think that the fact that Polar bear hunting STOPPED IN IT'S TRACKS in Alaska in 1972 has anything to do with increased polar bear numbers?

Of course it does.

The Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 (MMPA) was the first act of Congress to call specifically for an ecosystem approach to natural resource management and conservation. MMPA prohibits the taking of marine mammals, and enacts a moratorium on the import, export, and sale of any marine mammal, along with any marine mammal part or product within the United States. The Act defines "take" as "the act of hunting, killing, capture, and/or harassment of any marine mammal; or, the attempt at such." The MMPA defines harassment as "any act of pursuit, torment or annoyance which has the potential to either: a. injure a marine mammal in the wild, or b. disturb a marine mammal by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, which includes, but is not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering." The MMPA provides for enforcement of its prohibitions, and for the issuance of regulations to implement its legislative goals.
Contents


Authority to manage the MMPA was divided between the Secretary of the Interior through the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), and the Secretary of Commerce, which is delegated to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Subsequently, a third Federal agency, the Marine Mammal Commission (MMC), was established to review existing policies and make recommendations to the Service and the NOAA better implement the MMPA. Coordination between these three Federal agencies is necessary in order to provide the best management practices for marine mammals.

Under the MMPA, the Service is responsible for ensuring the protection of sea otters and marine otters, walruses, polar bears, three species of manatees, and dugongs. The NOAA was given responsibility to conserve and manage pinnipeds including seals and sea lions and cetaceans such as whales and dolphins.

You're an opportunistic hack westwall.

Why the insult? I was referring to this silly person.

International Agreement on Conservation of Polar Bears

Agreement on the Conservation of Polar Bears


You see dear boy there are more than just the Americans who have sovereignty over the areas that Polar Bears live. The treaty was negotiated in '73 and ratified here in the US in 1976. Because, if you had more than two brain cells, you would know that US laws don't apply to the NORTH FUCKING POLE!

That's why the countries of the Soviet Union, Canada, Denmark, Norway, and the United States had to enter into a TREATY so that the laws would apply to EVERYONE.

Gosh you're dim.

 

[Sweet Willy]

Actually, the Treaty was ratified in 1976 and made it illegal to kill polar bears from aircraft or large motor boats and they could not be killed in areas where they were not hunted by traditional methods in the past. This had the effect of creating a de facto preserve in the far north where the bears could breed.

Right... but your previous statement regarding the history of this didn't give any credit to conservation efforts or sanctuaries, preserves, hunting regulations.... none of that. You took the increased bear population numbers, that are in all likely hood due to conservation practice during a time when hunting pressure was at a break neck pace, and instead decided they were a good tool for your political crusade against the AGW crowd.

Do you think it's a good idea to take the hard fought results of conservationist and discredit them because it makes for a good tool for YOUR argument?

You sir, are the definition of a TOOL.

No, I don't think that the work of conservationists should be usurped for political gain by ANY group. Something the lefties began doing decades ago. And yes, I am a tool. A tool devoted to preserving the proper and ethical application of science.

You wipe your ass with it however. As is plain to see by your petulant posts.

But thanks for playing!

I haven't agreed or disagreed with, much less wiped my ass with anyone's science on this matter of AGW that gets your panties in a bunch.


I don't know.

You don't know.

 

[westwall]

Right... but your previous statement regarding the history of this didn't give any credit to conservation efforts or sanctuaries, preserves, hunting regulations.... none of that. You took the increased bear population numbers, that are in all likely hood due to conservation practice during a time when hunting pressure was at a break neck pace, and instead decided they were a good tool for your political crusade against the AGW crowd.

Do you think it's a good idea to take the hard fought results of conservationist and discredit them because it makes for a good tool for YOUR argument?

You sir, are the definition of a TOOL.

No, I don't think that the work of conservationists should be usurped for political gain by ANY group. Something the lefties began doing decades ago. And yes, I am a tool. A tool devoted to preserving the proper and ethical application of science.

You wipe your ass with it however. As is plain to see by your petulant posts.

But thanks for playing!

I haven't agreed or disagreed with, much less wiped my ass with anyone's science on this matter of AGW that gets your panties in a bunch.


I don't know.

You don't know.

This is the most rational post you've made.

 

[Sweet Willy]

No, I don't think that the work of conservationists should be usurped for political gain by ANY group. Something the lefties began doing decades ago. And yes, I am a tool. A tool devoted to preserving the proper and ethical application of science.

You wipe your ass with it however. As is plain to see by your petulant posts.

But thanks for playing!

I haven't agreed or disagreed with, much less wiped my ass with anyone's science on this matter of AGW that gets your panties in a bunch.


I don't know.

You don't know.

This is the most rational post you've made.

Evidently it is the first time you have listened, in 50 pages and two weeks. I have said the same thing over and over.


You are a dishonest hack. You took the polar bear numbers and used them as a tool to try and demonstrate something that YOU KNOW they do not demonstrate. We stopped hunting polar bears in 1972..... THAT is why we have more polar bears and anyone with half a brain knows that or can figure it out... you stop shooting them and the population goes up.... a real revelation

But you decided to be a hack and imply that polar bear numbers are up because global warming is a hoax.....

This is called JUNK SCIENCE. You know there is a reason for the Polar Bear numbers but you ignore it and substitute YOUR REASON for the sake of argument.

You are no scientist. You are a hack. Period.

 

[Big Fitz]

Yes Fitz...hunters are major contributors to conservation of habitat and species in many cases. I am guessing that you don't really pay attention to my post or links. I AM A HUNTER dumb ass. I founded and direct a conservation group comprised of hunters. Ducks Unlimited chief biologist, Dale Humberg, developed the survey for our shot shell program.

What the hell is your point? I have told you from the start that I am not an extremist. Yet you insist that you must sort people into one of the two boxes that your tiny brain can define.

I am not a PETA or Green Peace type. I am a conservationist, I have not addressed any of this is an extreme manner. You assholes got your panties in a wad over a couple photographs that show human impact and went on your preprogrammed denial speech.

Now...as far as westwalls dumbass point that since the 70s when environmentalist starting carrying on about polar bears, the population has increased, yes it has... BECAUSE of REGULATIONS. There were a couple of distinct laws and treaties with Canada and the USSR that outlawed shooting Polar bears from boats. That alone probably saved the polar bear from extincxion FROM HUNTERS.

Passenger pigeons? HUNTED to extinction.

Now Fitzy, my man, this tendency of your to either say "exhibit A" is either all good or all bad is just STUPID. Yes, hunters and hunters groups have done all sorts of good things. But they also have hunted species into extinction. There are no absolutes in this mess, there is a middle road.

But you keep insisting that everything be classed as "hunter good" "environmentalist bad" so your tiny pea brain can handle it. And by the way, I've lifted my moratorium on name calling: YOU'RE A DUMB ASS.

Well it seems to me that when it comes to conservation of a wildlife, you are a tad more rational than your views on climate and the weather.

See, here's the key difference. Climate is not the same as conservation. Climate affects conservation, and conservation cannot affect climate. Never has been. Never will be. If you wish to talk about wildlife conservation and habitat usage, then we might find some common ground.

I am very aware, even as a non-hunter the importance of man's role as a controlling factor of wildlife and our need to do so responsibly. But developing less hazardous bird shot and restocking programs deal in a subject unrelated to the entire issue in this threat in which you eviscerated your own credibility for the sake of a single word and philosophical principle. I know about men firing cannon into the air loaded with birdshot to take out whole whopping lots of carrier pigeons and the foolish destruction of the Dodo. The point is, that we have learned over time about that, and honestly I think a lot of the conservation efforts in this land have gone a long way in the right direction, at least by conservation groups and NOT environmental radical groups that want to wall off nature keeping it pure and sacred.

So there's this bunny trail of a subject that has nothing to do with AGW and it's political ramifications, or the real topic of the discussion. Or do you want to be ignored for more stupid linguistic games?

Where have I spoken to climate Fitz? This IS THE PROBLEM. I haven't stated any position on climate or AGW. in fact, I have repeatedly told you that I specifically do not support AGW theory. I've said it a dozen times .... I DON'T KNOW. YOU DON'T KNOW EITHER.

I have presented a few photographs that demonstrate mans ability to impact his environment in large scale AND I have brought up the dust bowl, which was a man made event that DID cause a climate phenomenon.

None of this makes me someone deserving of this ridiculous bashing and pigeon holing from the moment I entered this topic. You people are completely and utterly unreasonable. If someone is not towing your anti - environmental line, you imagine that they are far left eco terrorist and you begin your scripted, talking points, political baloney.

I have not taken any position on climate change. YOU have decided what YOU want to believe I think about climate change because YOU don't want to have to THINK or listen to a reasonable person. It threatens the extreme positions you adopt as political tools to fight useless battles of pig headed dumb asses on each side. NONE OF YOU ever learn a damned thing from each other. You're too busy bashing each other's heads in. When someone shows up, both sides hold him at hyperbolic gun point and ask which side he is on... if the poor guy is in the middle he gets shot at from both sides.

It's a damned joke. YOu all know that extremes are a HUGE part of the problem in the country, but rather than moderate, you continue to move to extremes as if it will counter the other extremes.... to make it short... yes, this place is full of dumb asses.

And westwall, you can stop the sock puppet shit. I just gave up links to my actual, real life identity. There is no mystery left. I am who i say I am and I do not have other identities.

And yes, I'm tired of playing nice and trying to raise the level of courtesy on your forum. All that got me was a bunch of assholes bashing me for being polite.... asshole. If you're a scientist, I'm Atila the Hun. Dumb ass.

1. I am not a scientist. I never claimed to be. That does not invalidate my right to comment or ask questions about the topic particularly when so much fraud is in the actual science, my opinion carries just about as much weight it seems than about every other poster here.

2. You are what you type online. I'm not the only one who has made your comments for being a blithering idiot on global warming and just not smart enough to quit when you're desperately behind.

3. You have now surpassed your 15 minutes of entertainment for me. So blither on little froggy. blither on.

 

[Sweet Willy]

1. I am not a scientist. I never claimed to be. That does not invalidate my right to comment or ask questions about the topic particularly when so much fraud is in the actual science, my opinion carries just about as much weight it seems than about every other poster here.

2. You are what you type online. I'm not the only one who has made your comments for being a blithering idiot on global warming and just not smart enough to quit when you're desperately behind.

3. You have now surpassed your 15 minutes of entertainment for me. So blither on little froggy. blither on.

No, you sure as hell are no scientist.

Yes, a few of your friends jumped the gun also, accusing me of various positions I never took. It's what political hacks schooled in their talking points memos do. The don't listen, they give well rehearsed replies in response to generalized topics.... again, as I have said several times, you guys don't allow middle ground... you sort into two simple little boxes in those little peanuts you call brains.

You have claimed to ignore this topic numerous times now. You haven't the personal restraint to leave it.

You as well, are a political hack, simple and common as they come.

 

[westwall]

I haven't agreed or disagreed with, much less wiped my ass with anyone's science on this matter of AGW that gets your panties in a bunch.


I don't know.

You don't know.

This is the most rational post you've made.

Evidently it is the first time you have listened, in 50 pages and two weeks. I have said the same thing over and over.


You are a dishonest hack. You took the polar bear numbers and used them as a tool to try and demonstrate something that YOU KNOW they do not demonstrate. We stopped hunting polar bears in 1972..... THAT is why we have more polar bears and anyone with half a brain knows that or can figure it out... you stop shooting them and the population goes up.... a real revelation

But you decided to be a hack and imply that polar bear numbers are up because global warming is a hoax.....

This is called JUNK SCIENCE. You know there is a reason for the Polar Bear numbers but you ignore it and substitute YOUR REASON for the sake of argument.

You are no scientist. You are a hack. Period.

Uhhh, I hate to break it to you but we havn't stopped hunting Polar Bears. For someone who claims to be a hunter and conservationist you are remarkably uninformed. You are just as much a political hack as I, and yes, I am a scientist and have been for longer than you have been alive.

I suggest you tuck tail and run before you make an even bigger ass of yourself.

"Polar bear hunting guides and outfitters can offer trips and guided hunts in some of the most dangerous areas in North America. The unique surrounds that this big game animal lives and hunts in can be an experience you will never find anywhere else. They reach weights of over 1,500 pounds and can be over 11 feet in length. With their white coats, it is very challenging to find and bad the polar bear. The outfitter or guide that you hire will most certainly have services that are different from a normal trip or guided hunt. Please contact these companies directly for further information."


These are called FACTS. Something you need to become conversant with.

Polar Bear Hunting Guides and Outfitters – Trips and Guided Hunts

 

[daveman]

Let's see... there are more Bald Eagles now too. And rather than see these sorts of things as the results of massive efforts to restore threatened and endangered habitats and species, you actually ignore all that and use the results of these massive efforts to say : "see....I told you the polar bears would be fine".... yeah dumb ass... cause we have made monumental efforts to preserve their habitat and species.

You are a blathering fool.

Dude: Hey westwall, why do you have a banana in you ear?

westwall: to keep the crocodiles away.

Dude: There aren't any crocodiles around here.

westwall: See, it's working. A banana in your ear keeps crocodiles away. I'm a scientist!

What monumental efforts have we made to preserve polar bears and their habitat?

And no, fear-mongering blog posts and documentaries aren't actually an effort.

Dave... you are barely worth the keystrokes, as you appear to be at least the assistant to the head dumb ass and probably in training to take the job.

BUT...

In 1973 or 74 there was a maritime law passed that outlawed the taking of polar bears from the water. You could no longer shoot polar bears while they were trapped out in the open on the sea ice. It was kind of like shooting fish in a barrel. Also, there were treaties on bag limits and seasons between the US and Russia and Canada.... I mean shit man... this is all a matter of record. At the time, Alaska and much of Canada were still "wild west" type places where big game hunters showed up and slaughtered animals just for the hell of it, and as many as they could.... just like still happens just about anywhere they can get away with it. It was early 70's in Alaska when we put a stop to "safari" style hunting up there where polar bears were taken in unlimited numbers by unlimited means.

Look it up dumb ass. I'm not doing your home work and I have ceased to give a rat's ass about you or any of these other knuckle dragging idiots on this forum. If I did look it up you'd try to tell me that ice will burn me or bears have feathers or some other stupid shit. YOu dumb asses spent days trying to tell me that the sun was cold and you think I'm going to present you with facts now?

I'm going to just do like you guys and sling mud and call names now. Facts are rare animals in this joint and you've got no respect for them anyway.... the sun is cold.... yeah right, dumb ass. Go play in the street or something.

You answered half my question, kid. Now for the other half:

What monumental efforts have we made to preserve polar bears' habitat, as you claimed? Remember, he who makes a claim is responsible for backing it up. Yes, that even applies to you.

I suspect you have no answer to this, and will again respond with more unmerited arrogant buffoonery.

 

[skookerasbil]

MOre k00k losing today...................

Solar company bankrupt despite 'win-win' DOE loan | Campaign 2012 | Washington Examiner


The k00ks never want to answer two critical questions regarding freen energy...............

1) At what cost

2) As comapred to what?

Accordingly, fossil fuels will continue to dominate for decades...........which, of course, is embraced by a huge majoirty who dont want to be forking over 2.1 billion for scam green energy bullshit or having anything to do with Crap and Tax.

 

[Robert_Stephens]

Well, at page 50, what is the census? Are in the midst of Global Warming by man, or, are we seeing one many many warming periods over the last 30,000 years. How are we looking?

Fun thread.

Robert