'Please, Save My Planet'

[NUNYA]

kookboy wrote:

<quoted text>
So it is nonsense that polar bear population has increased 5 fold in 50 year? They have increased from around 5,000 in the 50's to around 25,000 today.
From the WWF:
http://www.panda.org/about_wwf/what_we_do/spe...
"There are believed to be at least 22,000 polar bears worldwide"
From USA today (altough they list the date as 1972):
http://www.usatoday.com/weather/climate/globa...
"Polar bears have increased from a population of 5,000 in 1972 to between 20,000 and 25,000 today"
Who's spewing nonsense?
Kook

Wow, you're dense.
Look at the messengers: lobby groups for big business say there is no problem. Yes, conservation groups moved the issue forward for listing under the Endangered Species Act but this was already an issue that was founded on scientific information. The IUCN/SSC Polar Bear Specialist Group was moving on a Vulnerable designation (the same as Threatened under the Endangered Species Act) before anybody heard of actions from environmental groups. Sea ice change and habitat loss is the key driving force. Ignore the bears for a moment and look at the evidence for sea ice change: NASA is a key player in looking at the actual decreases in sea ice. It is an easy matter to put the dots together: no habitat, no seals; no seals, no bears. This never was an issue of polar bears alone. The only effective conservation approach is to protect the habitat and this is an issue of climate change. You can distort the issue any way you so desire. At the end of the day, the sea ice is disappearing. Take away the habitat and the species follows shortly thereafter (or before). What is wrong with you? Are you still upset that you can't hunt polar bears now? Get over it.

[clear glasses]

NUNYA wrote:

<quoted text>
Wow, you're dense.
Look at the messengers: lobby groups for big business say there is no problem. Yes, conservation groups moved the issue forward for listing under the Endangered Species Act but this was already an issue that was founded on scientific information. The IUCN/SSC Polar Bear Specialist Group was moving on a Vulnerable designation (the same as Threatened under the Endangered Species Act) before anybody heard of actions from environmental groups. Sea ice change and habitat loss is the key driving force. Ignore the bears for a moment and look at the evidence for sea ice change: NASA is a key player in looking at the actual decreases in sea ice. It is an easy matter to put the dots together: no habitat, no seals; no seals, no bears. This never was an issue of polar bears alone. The only effective conservation approach is to protect the habitat and this is an issue of climate change. You can distort the issue any way you so desire. At the end of the day, the sea ice is disappearing. Take away the habitat and the species follows shortly thereafter (or before). What is wrong with you? Are you still upset that you can't hunt polar bears now? Get over it.

To late to save the Titanic.

[NUNYA]

clear glasses wrote:

<quoted text>
To late to save the Titanic.

that's a cop out. you're just too lazy to make any modifications to your lifestyle.

[kookboy]

NUNYA wrote:

<quoted text>
Wow, you're dense.
Look at the messengers: lobby groups for big business say there is no problem. Yes, conservation groups moved the issue forward for listing under the Endangered Species Act but this was already an issue that was founded on scientific information. The IUCN/SSC Polar Bear Specialist Group was moving on a Vulnerable designation (the same as Threatened under the Endangered Species Act) before anybody heard of actions from environmental groups. Sea ice change and habitat loss is the key driving force. Ignore the bears for a moment and look at the evidence for sea ice change: NASA is a key player in looking at the actual decreases in sea ice. It is an easy matter to put the dots together: no habitat, no seals; no seals, no bears. This never was an issue of polar bears alone. The only effective conservation approach is to protect the habitat and this is an issue of climate change. You can distort the issue any way you so desire. At the end of the day, the sea ice is disappearing. Take away the habitat and the species follows shortly thereafter (or before). What is wrong with you? Are you still upset that you can't hunt polar bears now? Get over it.

Look at the messengers? Did you even look? One of them is the WWF which believes that the polar bears are endangered. They correctly list the number of polar bears today at a minimum of 22,000. Prior to 1973 the populations were decimated due to over hunting. Since an international treaty in 1973 they have been on the rise. The assumption that they are endangered is due to predictions. It is not based on any current decline. The above data is easily found on the internet. Just do a search. I tried to make it easy on you by supplying links. You just keep on spouting the party line with no factual bases.

Kook

[Reality]

NUNYA wrote:

<quoted text> It is an easy matter to put the dots together: no habitat, no seals; no seals, no bears.

No sea ice, no seals; no seals, no polar bears; no polar bear, no bear skin rugs; no bear skin rugs, no props for the set of the next Skinemax late night flick. Screw it....time to save the environment........if not for the children, do it for the future of soft core porn........

[NUNYA]

kookboy wrote:

<quoted text>
Look at the messengers? Did you even look? One of them is the WWF which believes that the polar bears are endangered. They correctly list the number of polar bears today at a minimum of 22,000. Prior to 1973 the populations were decimated due to over hunting. Since an international treaty in 1973 they have been on the rise. The assumption that they are endangered is due to predictions. It is not based on any current decline. The above data is easily found on the internet. Just do a search. I tried to make it easy on you by supplying links. You just keep on spouting the party line with no factual bases.
Kook

WWF also acknowledges that if current warming trends continue, they may disappear within 100 years. If you're comparing numbers from pre 1973 when their numbers were terribly low, to current, of course they're "on the rise"! They were previously hunted to the point of near instiction.

I digress, but I really can't fathom how anyone could shoot down one of these majestic animals in the name of "sport" What a bunch of insecure, pathetic, losers. I don't even know how any of them attract women....it's laughable when they think they're tough b/c they hunt down animals. Me thinks they're trying to overcompensate for their lack of "manhood".

[bus only lanes]

Nunya, please explain how protecting the polar bears is going to matter if the real culprit is melting sea ice.

How do you propose we stop it from melting? How much can we reduce our CO2 emissions and exactly how can we do that? And how much difference is that going to make? What will it cost is to do that? And will it be enough?

standing naked in front of a global business summit with a sign that reads "save the animals" may make you feel better. But if you expect anyone to take you seriously, you have to provide a well thought out cost/benefit analysis, with research based facts showing what you plan to accomplish, how, for how much money, and what the end result is.

So tell me. What in this for Joe Public??

[NUNYA]

bus only lanes wrote:

Nunya, please explain how protecting the polar bears is going to matter if the real culprit is melting sea ice.
How do you propose we stop it from melting? How much can we reduce our CO2 emissions and exactly how can we do that? And how much difference is that going to make? What will it cost is to do that? And will it be enough?
standing naked in front of a global business summit with a sign that reads "save the animals" may make you feel better. But if you expect anyone to take you seriously, you have to provide a well thought out cost/benefit analysis, with research based facts showing what you plan to accomplish, how, for how much money, and what the end result is.
So tell me. What in this for Joe Public??

Exactly what I'd expect from your post: "What is it in for Joe Public" That's all you care about-how YOU benefit. You could care less about what is the right thing to do, for not just YOU but all living things, human and non-human animals.

If you think I'm going to provide you with a "cost benefit analyst:, you're even dumber than I initially thought. The info is out there if you care to expand your little mind.

[kookboy]

NUNYA wrote:

<quoted text>
WWF also acknowledges that if current warming trends continue, they may disappear within 100 years. If you're comparing numbers from pre 1973 when their numbers were terribly low, to current, of course they're "on the rise"! They were previously hunted to the point of near instiction.
I digress, but I really can't fathom how anyone could shoot down one of these majestic animals in the name of "sport" What a bunch of insecure, pathetic, losers. I don't even know how any of them attract women....it's laughable when they think they're tough b/c they hunt down animals. Me thinks they're trying to overcompensate for their lack of "manhood".

You keep moving off the point. My point is that they are not currently in decline and have increased 5 fold in population in a very short time frame even those that believe that polar bears are at risk conceed this point. The argument that they are endangered is a prediction based on a prediction.

Kook

[bus only lanes]

NUNYA wrote:

<quoted text>
...I digress, but I really can't fathom how anyone could shoot down one of these majestic animals in the name of "sport" What a bunch of insecure, pathetic, losers. I don't even know how any of them attract women....it's laughable when they think they're tough b/c they hunt down animals. Me thinks they're trying to overcompensate for their lack of "manhood".

Let me explain a few things to you about hunting, Nunya.

1. Regardless of how much we try to remove ourselves from it, we ARE a part of the food chain. Meat does not come neatly wrapped in little styrofoam packages.

2. There is no joy in killing. Killing an animal is a means to an end, that end being food on the table.

3. Shooting an animal, having to clean that animal, cut it up, prepare it, etc. is an experience that gives you tremendous respect for life. It makes you appreciate all that you have, and understand how important it is that we preserve those animals and the areas in which they live

4. Hunting humbles you. Accepting that you have just taken the life of a magnificant animal so you and your family can eat is not an easy thing to deal with. You will never waste food again, and you will never take it for granted again.

5. If you ever saw how commercially raised livestock lived and died, how and what it ate, and what happened to that hamburger, bacon, pork, chicken, etc. from its birth all the way to your plate, you would never again question why people choose to hunt.

6. Wind game is healthy. The stuff they call "meat" would be too if not for the hormones, chemicals, and unnatural diet and lifestyle of those animals.

Now, if you wish to protest all this by not eating meat and make the ridiculous assertion that humanity has "evolved" somehow beyond our biological functions and we are no longer omnivores (good luck finding a biologist to back you on that one) you go right ahead. But until you remove the self righteous hat from your head and stop telling people how they should live,(in a country founded on freedom to live how we want no less) you will not be taken seriously by anyone excpt your little circle of (presumable teenage female) friends.

And as a side note, something you will eventually learn as you grow into adulthood: Men don't care about the size of their "manhood". It suits us just fine as long as it works. If it ever stops working? Well, they have pills for that now. As a woman, it may matter to you or it may not. We don't care. Worst case is we have to find a different woman.

[bus only lanes]

NUNYA wrote:

<quoted text>
Exactly what I'd expect from your post: "What is it in for Joe Public" That's all you care about-how YOU benefit. You could care less about what is the right thing to do, for not just YOU but all living things, human and non-human animals.
If you think I'm going to provide you with a "cost benefit analyst:, you're even dumber than I initially thought. The info is out there if you care to expand your little mind.

I've got some bad news for you Nunya. How it affects "Joe Public" is how decisions get made. That's how the world works. The sooner you learn that the better off you will be.

[NUNYA]

kookboy wrote:

<quoted text>
You keep moving off the point. My point is that they are not currently in decline and have increased 5 fold in population in a very short time frame even those that believe that polar bears are at risk conceed this point. The argument that they are endangered is a prediction based on a prediction.
Kook

That is not entirely true and honestly you're tiresome at this point. Do you think the BUSH admin would protect this animal under ESA if its numbers weren't showing signs of consistent decline??

[bus only lanes]

Nunya...

The Bush administration is on its way out. Anything they are doing at this point is all about appearances to garner votes for the next Republican administration.(i.e. the McCain campaign) Take the blinders off, girl. This was an effort to score points with the segment of Democratic voters who might otherwise not vote at all once their Democratic candidate is off the ticket.

[NUNYA]

bus only lanes wrote:

<quoted text>
Let me explain a few things to you about hunting, Nunya.
1. Regardless of how much we try to remove ourselves from it, we ARE a part of the food chain. Meat does not come neatly wrapped in little styrofoam packages.
2. There is no joy in killing. Killing an animal is a means to an end, that end being food on the table.
3. Shooting an animal, having to clean that animal, cut it up, prepare it, etc. is an experience that gives you tremendous respect for life. It makes you appreciate all that you have, and understand how important it is that we preserve those animals and the areas in which they live
4. Hunting humbles you. Accepting that you have just taken the life of a magnificant animal so you and your family can eat is not an easy thing to deal with. You will never waste food again, and you will never take it for granted again.
5. If you ever saw how commercially raised livestock lived and died, how and what it ate, and what happened to that hamburger, bacon, pork, chicken, etc. from its birth all the way to your plate, you would never again question why people choose to hunt.
6. Wind game is healthy. The stuff they call "meat" would be too if not for the hormones, chemicals, and unnatural diet and lifestyle of those animals.
Now, if you wish to protest all this by not eating meat and make the ridiculous assertion that humanity has "evolved" somehow beyond our biological functions and we are no longer omnivores (good luck finding a biologist to back you on that one) you go right ahead. But until you remove the self righteous hat from your head and stop telling people how they should live,(in a country founded on freedom to live how we want no less) you will not be taken seriously by anyone excpt your little circle of (presumable teenage female) friends.
And as a side note, something you will eventually learn as you grow into adulthood: Men don't care about the size of their "manhood". It suits us just fine as long as it works. If it ever stops working? Well, they have pills for that now. As a woman, it may matter to you or it may not. We don't care. Worst case is we have to find a different woman.

While I appreciate the time it took for you to compose this email, I am and always be a vegetarian. I'd like to call it evolving. Don't forget that our cavemen ancestors were opportunistic hunters and gathers. Take a look at your canine teeth and compare your tooth to a true carnivore (lion, even a dog)...you won't be taking down any deer with your teeth.

With regard to the healthy upsides to my diet, I'd like to compare bloodwork to see who's healthier!

I know all about factory farming and how meat is produced for mass consumption. If I had to choose between who I hate less, factory farms or hunters, you'd win.

[Reality]

NUNYA wrote:

<quoted text>
If you think I'm going to provide you with a "cost benefit analyst:, you're even dumber than I initially thought. The info is out there if you care to expand your little mind.

Translation:
I don't know what a cost/benefit analysis is. It sounds important, so I'm guessing that one might exist. Since I have no idea what one is or how to find it, I'm just going to tell you that you can easily find it yourself. But, because I think polar bears are cute, and my support group said we should save them, I'm just going to tell you that you are dumb.

Reality--Cost/benefit analysis doesn't exist. One won't exist due to the fact that man's impact on warming cannot be determined (primarily because there is no impact from man), so analyzing data that doesn't exist in order to create a cost/benefit analysis is impossible. Besides, a cost/benefit analysis only works when you can tie both ends of the equation to a financial end.

[bus only lanes]

NUNYA wrote:

<quoted text>
While I appreciate the time it took for you to compose this email, I am and always be a vegetarian. I'd like to call it evolving. Don't forget that our cavemen ancestors were opportunistic hunters and gathers. Take a look at your canine teeth and compare your tooth to a true carnivore (lion, even a dog)...you won't be taking down any deer with your teeth.
With regard to the healthy upsides to my diet, I'd like to compare bloodwork to see who's healthier!
I know all about factory farming and how meat is produced for mass consumption. If I had to choose between who I hate less, factory farms or hunters, you'd win.

You can call it "evolving" if that makes you feel good about yourself, but there is no such thing as a conscious evolution. Evolution is a biological process that takes place over thousands if not millions of years, based on a species needing to adapt to changing environmental conditions in order to survive.

Our ancestors WERE hunter gatherers, that's what their bodies were designed for. You do have that right at least. As much as you'd like to believe your body is designed differently, our digestive system and nutritional needs have remained unchanged. We don't need canine teeth because we have opposable thumbs and the ability to use tools. And we have never been carnivores like lions and canines -- we are and always have been omnivores. That's not likely to change any time soon, despite your desire to make it so.

If you really could set your mind to it and simply "evolve", why not learn to photosynthesize? Why not reduce our need for water, or sleep for that matter? Meat is a part of the human diet by design, Nunya. Choose to not eat it for sentimental reasons, or your personal convictions. But do not pretend your are "evolving".

[kookboy]

NUNYA wrote:

<quoted text>
That is not entirely true and honestly you're tiresome at this point. Do you think the BUSH admin would protect this animal under ESA if its numbers weren't showing signs of consistent decline??

What does it matter to me why the Bush admistration did this? That means nothing one way or the other. You call my point tiresome but I have shown you sources for my opinion and you have show nothing but rhetoric. HOW is my point not entirely true?

Kook

[kookboy]

bus only lanes wrote:

<quoted text>
Let me explain a few things to you about hunting, Nunya.
1. Regardless of how much we try to remove ourselves from it, we ARE a part of the food chain. Meat does not come neatly wrapped in little styrofoam packages.
2. There is no joy in killing. Killing an animal is a means to an end, that end being food on the table.
3. Shooting an animal, having to clean that animal, cut it up, prepare it, etc. is an experience that gives you tremendous respect for life. It makes you appreciate all that you have, and understand how important it is that we preserve those animals and the areas in which they live
4. Hunting humbles you. Accepting that you have just taken the life of a magnificant animal so you and your family can eat is not an easy thing to deal with. You will never waste food again, and you will never take it for granted again.
5. If you ever saw how commercially raised livestock lived and died, how and what it ate, and what happened to that hamburger, bacon, pork, chicken, etc. from its birth all the way to your plate, you would never again question why people choose to hunt.
6. Wind game is healthy. The stuff they call "meat" would be too if not for the hormones, chemicals, and unnatural diet and lifestyle of those animals.
Now, if you wish to protest all this by not eating meat and make the ridiculous assertion that humanity has "evolved" somehow beyond our biological functions and we are no longer omnivores (good luck finding a biologist to back you on that one) you go right ahead. But until you remove the self righteous hat from your head and stop telling people how they should live,(in a country founded on freedom to live how we want no less) you will not be taken seriously by anyone excpt your little circle of (presumable teenage female) friends.
And as a side note, something you will eventually learn as you grow into adulthood: Men don't care about the size of their "manhood". It suits us just fine as long as it works. If it ever stops working? Well, they have pills for that now. As a woman, it may matter to you or it may not. We don't care. Worst case is we have to find a different woman.

I place no judgement one way or the other but generally polar bears are hunted as a trophy animal by all but the eskimos. Not as a food source.

Kook

[bus only lanes]

Well, that is something I have a problem with. If you do not intent to eat it, there is no reason to shoot it.

[Chewbone]

Not in the least confused wrote:

Earth First, we'll strip mine the other planets later.

Actually it goes "Earth first, we'll destroy the other planets later"