Posted on 09/22/2008 11:37:49 AM PDT by gridlock
BARROW, ALASKA -- Federal scientists flying over the Arctic Ocean last month spotted something nearly unprecedented during their annual count of bowhead whales: nine polar bears in the open sea, miles from anywhere.
One was swimming 60 miles off Barrow. A flight a week or so later found five bears plying their way through the swells. The findings wouldn't have been so alarming -- they are powerful swimmers -- except that their likely destination, the sea ice on which the predators depend for survival, had retreated 400 miles offshore.
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
What the article fails to note, however, is that development of Alaskan energy resources will have no more effect on the Polar Bear population than development of any other fossil fuel anywhere in the World, since the "logic" behind the listing is that Human-Caused Global Warming is destroying the Polar Bear habitat. Since the warming effect of fossil fuel consumption is the same regardless or where it was found, it makes no sense to single out Alaskan production in order to preserve the Polar Bear.
This is obvious to anybody who thinks about the question for two seconds, but not obvious, apparently, to Kim Murphy of the Los Angeles Times. For some reason, she presumes that Alaska must carry the entire burden for saving the Polar Bear (which is doing quite nicely on it's own, thank you very much).
If environmentalists want to campaign on a platform of stopping all energy development anywhere, along with the $10/gallon gasoline that would result, they should do so. But it is fundamentally dishonest to ask Alaska to bear the burden of the entire World's energy consumption.
Wow. Who would think that the Alaska Governor would want economic development to create a better economy? Maybe she should be like the NY and Mass governor’s and try to drive the Alaska economy down. Ya think?
OH NO! Not DEVELOPMENT! That could lead to wealth creation, prosperity, good jobs and a better life. Say it isn’t so!!!!
Shocker!
She was trying to improve the local economy?
Shame on her!
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
Not the dreaded "development is bad" argument!
That is soooo 60s...
Of course, everyone beyond Jr High realizes that these clowns condemn every hint of development --- except where they happen to live.
One of the worse cesspool pits in the entire country.
Enough said...
Well, if pumping oil in Alaska is going to lead to Global Warming, then pumping oil in Texas, or the Gulf of Mexico, or Brazil will do the same. The argument that is being used against Sarah Palin applies to anybody who wants to develop fossil fuel energy resources anywhere.
This is why the ESA listing of Polar Bears is such a disaster. Once the “logic” is accepted, every time you put gasoline in your tank, you are killing a fluffy little polar bear, and you must be stopped.
Polar bears floating motionless face down.
Awwwwww! Aren't they cute!
Sarah Palin wants to kill them, you know...
It is a shame that so many environmentalists will never have an opportunity to go up to the Alaskan wilderness to pet a polar bear. We should all pool our money to send these poor deprived folks on Alaskan safaris so they can give one of this momma's babies a great big hug!
A side benefit of this safari program is that it would provide a ready source of food for the poor starving bears!
Also, yesterday I was watching a special on the History channel about the Vikings. It said when the Vikings came to Greenland, there was green grass and a diversity of plants. and the mini-ice age wiped them out in Greenland.
So that means the Earth was warmer at some point than it is now and there weren't cars back then
Also, yesterday I was watching a special on the History channel about the Vikings. It said when the Vikings came to Greenland, there was green grass and a diversity of plants. and the mini-ice age wiped them out in Greenland.
So that means the Earth was warmer at some point than it is now and there weren't cars back then
Are we supposed to care about a few stupid polar bears?
My heart is untouched!
Well, since the only way to “save” the Polar Bears is for you to freeze in the dark this Winter, I would not expect you to be overly sympathetic.
The ESA Polar Bear listing is nothing but an attempt to back-door carbon dioxide emissions restrictions. It has nothing to do with Polar Bears or whether or not they are actually endangered.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.