Polar Bears United Against Sarah Palin

Discussion in 'Politics' started by ByLoSellHi, Sep 11, 2008.

  1. http://a.abcnews.com/Blotter/story?id=5689165&page=1


    McCain's vice-presidential pick, Alaskan Gov. Sarah Palin, sued the Bush Administration in federal court recently, charging it was too accepting of climate change studies which overstated the phenomenon's impact on polar bears. The result, she argued, would be a negative impact on her state's businesses, including oil and gas extraction...

    ...In defending her position, Palin has discounted the findings of nine recent U.S. Geological Survey studies which concluded that the polar bear's habitat is threatened by global warming, and the animals could be extinct before this century ends.

    Three of Palin's own state scientists reviewed the USGS studies and found them sound, according to internal documents released to an Alaska professor earlier this year under the state's open records law. But she has argued, in a New York Times editorial and elsewhere, that "there is insufficient evidence that polar bears are in danger of becoming extinct in the foreseeable future."

    Palin's position, she wrote, is based on "a comprehensive review by state wildlife officials of scientific information from a broad range of climate, ice and polar bear experts."

    "Essentially, she lied," said University of Alaska professor Rick Steiner, who wrangled with the Palin administration for months to obtain the documents. "She came out and said, 'our scientists agree the polar bears are fine and should not be listed'" when that wasn't the case, said Steiner, a conservation specialist who studies climate change. The McCain-Palin campaign did not make the governor available for comment.

    Sarah Palin - still in a bubble and regurgitating her acceptance speech in cliff note fashion before people who have little clue (yet) as to how radical she is.
  2. I see you left out a part of the article:

    So evidently we can presume that you favor the welfare of polar bears over people.

    This is a well-known liberal tactic in many areas. Who can forget the kangaroo rat, that stopped development in California? LOL.

  3. <img src=http://www.plasticandplush.com/plasticandplush/images/peary.jpg>
  4. Call me a wacko, or whatever you want, but Ted Nugent and I agree on this issue.

    You simply can't let the Polar Bear go extinct.

    It's way too glorious to be so dissed.

    Your comment that choosing between the Polar Bear and People is a false proposition. A highly disingenuous one at that.
  5. You nailed it. This is another fake crisis, based on a fake crisis, manmade global warming. Now we are supposed to wreck our economy because ice is melting in the arctic.
  6. False proposition?

    So far idiots like you have been behind no drilling off the coasts, no new nuclear facilities, no refineries, etc etc. This is yet another situation where putting the polar bear on the Endangered Species list simply puts large areas of Alaska off limits for a variety of commercial enterprises.

    When guys like you come up with ideas like this, it hurts people, whether you acknowledge it or not. No refineries, no drilling, no nuclear facilities, results in larger amounts of energy coming from unstable and unfriendly foreign sources, and at a higher price. Some people suffer as a result. Oh yeah, I forgot...now you want to take money from one set of people and give it to those people...yeah..you got it covered. What a moron.

  7. You're old. You're cranky. Constipated something fierce, too.

    Probably have dentures and can't get it up.

    We understand, gramps.
  8. Was this one of those "ad hominem" attacks that you were so disturbed by the other day? LOL.

  9. Yes. I've fallen off the wagon.
  10. That could be true.

    Actually refinery capacity has grown massively over the past decades. In fact, so much so that old refineries were cheap to buy.

    Here's what one company said in 2004: "Mary Rose Brown, a spokeswoman for Valero Energy Corp., says the current economic situation does not justify an investment in new oil refineries even with financial support from the Saudis. That's the case because the company can still purchase existing refineries for as little as 10 percent to 20 percent of replacement costs."


    There are tens of millions of acres that have been leased but are not currently being drilled. Not because of environmentalists, but because it's cheaper (and more profitable) to not drill or to drill on land.

    Okay, build one in your neighborhood.
    #10     Sep 11, 2008