In article ,
"J. Clarke" wrote:

Bill wrote:
In article
,
Billy wrote:


Still wondering what the guy was thinking, as he cut down the last
tree on Easter Island.

Most likely it was me me me.

Bill who thinks there is no other.

Taste from Salon.
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/20...lar_bears/inde
x.html?source=search&aim=/news/feature

.......................................
No bears for oil

Why hasn't the polar bear been granted federal protection? Maybe
because the Bush administration plans a last-minute handout of oil
leases on its habitat.

By Katharine Mieszkowski


Jan. 17, 2008 | By 2050, two-thirds of the world's polar bears will
have vanished, as a result of global warming melting their icy
habitat, according to scientists at the U.S. Geological Survey.
There
may no longer be any polar bears at all living in Alaska, their only
home in the United States. Still, this stark prediction, revealed in
September 2007, after a yearlong review of the impact of melting sea
ice on the Alaskan bears, hasn't inspired the Bush administration to
list the bear as even a threatened species, much less an endangered
one, under the Endangered Species Act.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, responsible for listing mammals
as
threatened or endangered, has been one of the most politically
compromised scientific divisions in the Bush administration. It
didn't
consider extending federal protections to polar bears until it was
petitioned, and subsequently sued, to do so by a coalition of
environmental groups back in 2005. Now it admits that polar bears
are
"likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future," and
explained
recent delays by citing the complexity of the decision: It has never
before had to designate a species as threatened because of global
warming.

I'd hate to be in the position of the poor sod working at Prudhoe Bay
who has to decide "do I shoot the bear and go to jail, or do I die?"

Friend of mine worked on the DEWline. Anybody who thinks that polar
bears need to be a protected species need to listen to some of his
polar bear stories. If they are protected there needs to be a
_strong_ exemption for self-defense, with "bear in sight and looking
hungry" being complete justification.

--

When the Greenland ice cap melts (2 miles thick) and the Antarctic ice
cap melts (avg. thickness is 7,000 feet) the oceans will rise 200 feet
and we may be faced with mass extinction. (The more ice that melts means
less radiation is reflected back into space, and we warm up even
faster.) So I wouldn't sweat the Polar Bears.
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?cha...ID=00037A5 D-
A938-150E-A93883414B7F0000
--

Billy

Impeach Pelosi, Bush & Cheney to the Hague
http://angryarab.blogspot.com/
http://rachelcorriefoundation.org/