BuffettNews.com

Quiet and Shy wrote:

captenuta wrote:

Quiet and Shy wrote:Someone needs to ask the polar bears about this...oh that's right; there aren't many left because their habitat (ice) is disappearing....

That statement is not true ask the Inuit hunters in Canada. Mitch Taylor, the GN’s polar bear boss, says the latest findings confirm what Inuit hunters have said for a long time: polar bears who live along the southeast coast of Baffin Island, Ungava Bay in northern Quebec, and the northern coast of Labrador are healthy, and growing in numbers.

I don't know what "GN" is. I can't immediately quote sources but I've seen some credible reports on how the numbers appear to be in decline and the condition/health of polar bears overall has deteriorated significantly. The research points to a shortened hunting season (due to less polar ice) as the most probable cause. And, data could certainly vary by locale vs. overall...kind of like the rediculous argument people are making that global warming doesn't exist because it's cold outside today.

spoonerhizolehound wrote:

Quiet and Shy wrote:

captenuta wrote:

Quiet and Shy wrote:Someone needs to ask the polar bears about this...oh that's right; there aren't many left because their habitat (ice) is disappearing....

That statement is not true ask the Inuit hunters in Canada. Mitch Taylor, the GN’s polar bear boss, says the latest findings confirm what Inuit hunters have said for a long time: polar bears who live along the southeast coast of Baffin Island, Ungava Bay in northern Quebec, and the northern coast of Labrador are healthy, and growing in numbers.

I don't know what "GN" is. I can't immediately quote sources but I've seen some credible reports on how the numbers appear to be in decline and the condition/health of polar bears overall has deteriorated significantly. The research points to a shortened hunting season (due to less polar ice) as the most probable cause. And, data could certainly vary by locale vs. overall...kind of like the rediculous argument people are making that global warming doesn't exist because it's cold outside today.

Um...wouldn't the hunting season add to the decline in numbers?

buffettbride wrote:

spoonerhizolehound wrote:

Quiet and Shy wrote:

captenuta wrote:

Quiet and Shy wrote:Someone needs to ask the polar bears about this...oh that's right; there aren't many left because their habitat (ice) is disappearing....

That statement is not true ask the Inuit hunters in Canada. Mitch Taylor, the GN’s polar bear boss, says the latest findings confirm what Inuit hunters have said for a long time: polar bears who live along the southeast coast of Baffin Island, Ungava Bay in northern Quebec, and the northern coast of Labrador are healthy, and growing in numbers.

I don't know what "GN" is. I can't immediately quote sources but I've seen some credible reports on how the numbers appear to be in decline and the condition/health of polar bears overall has deteriorated significantly. The research points to a shortened hunting season (due to less polar ice) as the most probable cause. And, data could certainly vary by locale vs. overall...kind of like the rediculous argument people are making that global warming doesn't exist because it's cold outside today.

Um...wouldn't the hunting season add to the decline in numbers?

A shortened hunting season, as she mentioned, would support an increase in the polar bear population, keeping more of them alive to die due to habitat loss because of the melting ice shelves which results in an overall, long-term decrease in the polar bear population.

buffettbride wrote:

spoonerhizolehound wrote:

Quiet and Shy wrote:

captenuta wrote:

Quiet and Shy wrote:Someone needs to ask the polar bears about this...oh that's right; there aren't many left because their habitat (ice) is disappearing....

That statement is not true ask the Inuit hunters in Canada. Mitch Taylor, the GN’s polar bear boss, says the latest findings confirm what Inuit hunters have said for a long time: polar bears who live along the southeast coast of Baffin Island, Ungava Bay in northern Quebec, and the northern coast of Labrador are healthy, and growing in numbers.

I don't know what "GN" is. I can't immediately quote sources but I've seen some credible reports on how the numbers appear to be in decline and the condition/health of polar bears overall has deteriorated significantly. The research points to a shortened hunting season (due to less polar ice) as the most probable cause. And, data could certainly vary by locale vs. overall...kind of like the rediculous argument people are making that global warming doesn't exist because it's cold outside today.

Um...wouldn't the hunting season add to the decline in numbers?

A shortened hunting season, as she mentioned, would support an increase in the polar bear population, keeping more of them alive to die due to habitat loss because of the melting ice shelves which results in an overall, long-term decrease in the polar bear population.

captenuta wrote:

buffettbride wrote:

spoonerhizolehound wrote:

Quiet and Shy wrote:

captenuta wrote:

Quiet and Shy wrote:Someone needs to ask the polar bears about this...oh that's right; there aren't many left because their habitat (ice) is disappearing....

That statement is not true ask the Inuit hunters in Canada. Mitch Taylor, the GN’s polar bear boss, says the latest findings confirm what Inuit hunters have said for a long time: polar bears who live along the southeast coast of Baffin Island, Ungava Bay in northern Quebec, and the northern coast of Labrador are healthy, and growing in numbers.

I don't know what "GN" is. I can't immediately quote sources but I've seen some credible reports on how the numbers appear to be in decline and the condition/health of polar bears overall has deteriorated significantly. The research points to a shortened hunting season (due to less polar ice) as the most probable cause. And, data could certainly vary by locale vs. overall...kind of like the rediculous argument people are making that global warming doesn't exist because it's cold outside today.

Um...wouldn't the hunting season add to the decline in numbers?

A shortened hunting season, as she mentioned, would support an increase in the polar bear population, keeping more of them alive to die due to habitat loss because of the melting ice shelves which results in an overall, long-term decrease in the polar bear population.

yea, I , um , well , I'm lost.

Indiana Jolly Mon wrote:So Al Gore hunts polar bears in his hummer with an extra gas bag???

Indiana Jolly Mon wrote:So Al Gore hunts polar bears in his hummer with an extra gas bag???

Wino you know wrote:There's some bozo on the radio right now going on and on and on about how he's predicting the world is going to end in seven billion years.
And me, being a little hard of hearing, I called him to ask that he please repeat what he'd just said.
He again reiterated that the world will end in seven billion years.

THANK GOD! For a minute there I thought he said seven MILLION.

Indiana Jolly Mon wrote:So Al Gore hunts polar bears in his hummer with an extra gas bag???

LIPH wrote:

Indiana Jolly Mon wrote:So Al Gore hunts polar bears in his hummer with an extra gas bag???

Al gore, hummers and polar bears. All we need is chocolate pudding, whipped cream, a trampoline and Tipper.

LIPH wrote:

Indiana Jolly Mon wrote:So Al Gore hunts polar bears in his hummer with an extra gas bag???

Al Gore, hummers and polar bears. All we need is chocolate pudding, whipped cream, a trampoline and Tipper.

spoonerhizolehound wrote:

Wino you know wrote:There's some bozo on the radio right now going on and on and on about how he's predicting the world is going to end in seven billion years.
And me, being a little hard of hearing, I called him to ask that he please repeat what he'd just said.
He again reiterated that the world will end in seven billion years.

THANK GOD! For a minute there I thought he said seven MILLION.

His figures are totally off...it's eleventy billion.

LIPH wrote:I just hope if Gore runs for president again his opponent isn't Jeb Bush. I don't think I could take another campaign constantly hearing about gore and bush. It was like I was watching Cinemax for 6 months.

LIPH wrote:

captenuta wrote:

buffettbride wrote:

captenuta wrote:

buffettbride wrote:

Quiet and Shy wrote: Does anyone know WHY CO2 is blamed so much for global warming? I've been wondering about this but haven't seen the rationale behind it. I know the proportion in the atmosphere has increased, but do we know that change has been the cause??? As opposed to, for example, the billions of people on the Earth and all of our industrial activities that all give off heat....

Since you asked...

The primary greenhouse gases that contribute to the bulk of atmospheric change (:lol: global warming) are, in order of appearance, carbon dioxide, chloroflorocarbons, methane, and nitrous oxide. CO2 is the most prominant because it is the result of human use of fossil fuels whereas the choloroflorcarbons are more from household products such as aerosols (although that is declining) and air conditioning. methane is mostly from the clearing/burning of rainforests and land to make it habitable for humans, and the nitrous oxide is primarily from fertilizers.

I think the big fear comes from individuals/groups/countries/companies who feel slowing down "business" by curbing greenhouse gases will constrain business, slow the economy, and increase the cost of living for US citizens having to pay for alternative, more expensive fuels ane the research/implementation of such things.

The opposing opinion, which is more agreeable to mine, is that a truly global stance needs to be made and kept, and unfortunately the US (being by and large the BIGGEST polluter in the world) is unwilling to cooperate.

I don't like Al Gore either, but I'm glad he invented the Internets.

The main reson the USA did not get behind the Kyoto treaty to curb the use of fossil fuel is because India and China would be exempt. They are a growing economy with over 10 billion people looking to drive thier own cars. The planet is a living breathing life form that will go on with us and someday without us. I'm not saying we should trash the place just don't start planning the "Party at the end of the World".

So the US shouldn't do it because so-and-so isn't going to do it instead of doing it because globally it's the right thing to do?

It's 10 BILLION VS 250 Million. The point is everyone should be doing it.

Conserving that is.

Or what ever else...

I don't know where you got your figures from but there aren't 10 billion people in India and China. There aren't 10 billion people on the entire planet.

buffettbride wrote:

captenuta wrote:
It's 10 BILLION VS 250 Million. The point is everyone should be doing it.

Conserving that is.

Or what ever else...

Of course everyone should be doing it. I just think we should go first.

jonesbeach10 wrote:

buffettbride wrote:

captenuta wrote:
Also as Ragtop said, the Earth will destroy us before we destroy it.