Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Libertarianize the GOP

Alaska should just say no. Either that or sell the land to the FED for about $100,000/acre.

Last I checked the government can’t just seize property whether owned privately of my a state.


3 posted on 10/22/2009 1:04:15 PM PDT by Tenacious 1 (Government For the People - an obviously concealed oxymoron)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: Tenacious 1

Interestingly, the World Wildlife Fund (WWF), an international organization that has worked for 50 years to protect endangered species, has also written on the threats posed to polar bears from global warming. However, their own research seems to undermine their fears. According to the WWF, about 20 distinct polar bear populations exist, accounting for approximately 22,000 polar bears worldwide. As the figure shows, population patterns do not show a temperature-linked decline:

Only two of the distinct population groups, accounting for about 16.4 percent of the total population, are decreasing.
Ten populations, approximately 45.4 percent of the total number, are stable.
Another two populations - about 13.6 percent of the total number of polar bears - are increasing.
The status of the remaining six populations (whether they are stable, increasing or decreasing in size) is unknown.

Moreover, when the WWF report is compared with the Arctic air temperature trend studies discussed earlier, there is a strong positive (instead of negative) correlation between air temperature and polar bear populations. Polar bear populations are declining in regions (like Baffin Bay) that have experienced a decrease in air temperature, while areas where polar bear populations are increasing (near the Bering Strait and the Chukchi Sea) are associated with increasing air temperatures. Thus it is difficult to argue that rising air temperatures will necessarily and directly lead to a decrease in polar bear populations.


12 posted on 10/22/2009 1:13:35 PM PDT by milwguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]

To: Tenacious 1

It’s much more likely they have already sold it, or the rights for future drilling. The polar bears are just a smokescreen. I know it sounds tin-foil, but it makes sense.

As to the latter you better check again. The government seizes property all the time. A classic example among many are the coal properties in the state of Utah back in the 90s.


25 posted on 10/22/2009 1:41:14 PM PDT by Freedom4US
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson