http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/25/science/25bats.html?8dpc


³This is probably one of the strangest and most puzzling problems we
have had with bats,² said Paul Cryan, a bat ecologist with the United
States Geological Survey. ³It¹s really startling that we¹ve not come up
with a smoking gun yet.²
Merlin Tuttle, the president of Bat Conservation International, an
education and research group in Austin, Tex., said: ³So far as we can
tell at this point, this may be the most serious threat to North
American bats we¹ve experienced in recorded history. ³It definitely
warrants immediate and careful attention.²

--
Garden in shade zone 5 S Jersey USA

Not to mention frogs.

J.

On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 06:37:51 -0400, Bill
wrote:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/25/science/25bats.html?8dpc


³This is probably one of the strangest and most puzzling problems we
have had with bats,² said Paul Cryan, a bat ecologist with the United
States Geological Survey. ³It¹s really startling that we¹ve not come up
with a smoking gun yet.²
Merlin Tuttle, the president of Bat Conservation International, an
education and research group in Austin, Tex., said: ³So far as we can
tell at this point, this may be the most serious threat to North
American bats we¹ve experienced in recorded history. ³It definitely
warrants immediate and careful attention.²

In article ,
JXStern wrote:

Not to mention frogs.

J.

On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 06:37:51 -0400, Bill
wrote:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/25/science/25bats.html?8dpc


³This is probably one of the strangest and most puzzling problems we
have had with bats,² said Paul Cryan, a bat ecologist with the United
States Geological Survey. ³It¹s really startling that we¹ve not come up
with a smoking gun yet.²
Merlin Tuttle, the president of Bat Conservation International, an
education and research group in Austin, Tex., said: ³So far as we can
tell at this point, this may be the most serious threat to North
American bats we¹ve experienced in recorded history. ³It definitely
warrants immediate and careful attention.²

During the last 50,000 years, including the end of the last glacial
period, approximately 33 genera of large mammals have become extinct in
North America. Of these, 15 genera extinctions can be reliably
attributed to a brief interval of 11,500 to 10,000 radiocarbon years
before present, shortly following the arrival of the Clovis people in
North America.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocen...#North_America

Presently, 16,306 species are threatened with extinction.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...9/12/AR2007091
202322.html

Another species lost every 20 minutes.
http://www.conservation.org/act/get_...lock.aspx?KNC-
adwords&gclid=CPHE_sjZqJICFRpOagodHn6ZQA

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

Billy

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

. . . 15 genera extinctions can be reliably
attributed to a brief interval of 11,500 to 10,000 radiocarbon years
before present, shortly following the arrival of the Clovis people in


Are "radiocarbon years" different from say, Earth years?

Eric Miller
www.dyesscreek.com

In article ,
JXStern wrote:

Not to mention frogs.

J.


The article mentions that human transport or interaction should be
reduced. Sounds like lessons of the frog transport of pathogens may be
catching on.

Bill Listening for peepers.

--
Garden in shade zone 5 S Jersey USA

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.

--
Garden in shade zone 5 S Jersey USA

In article ,
Eric Miller wrote:

. . . 15 genera extinctions can be reliably
attributed to a brief interval of 11,500 to 10,000 radiocarbon years
before present, shortly following the arrival of the Clovis people in


Are "radiocarbon years" different from say, Earth years?

Eric Miller
www.dyesscreek.com

Isotope Carbon 14 is radio-active, which is to say their is a period of
time that it takes for half of it to decay (it's half life) and by
adding up the decay products you can approximate fairly closely how long
it has been decaying.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating

Radiocarbon dating is a radiometric dating method that uses the
naturally occurring isotope carbon-14 (14C) to determine the age of
carbonaceous materials up to about 60,000 years.[1] Raw, i.e.
uncalibrated, radiocarbon ages are usually reported in radiocarbon years
"Before Present" (BP), "Present" being defined as AD 1950. Such raw ages
can be calibrated to give calendar dates.
--

Billy

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

In article , Grammar Granny
wrote:

On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 06:37:51 -0400, Bill
wrote:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/25/science/25bats.html?8dpc


³This is probably one of the strangest and most puzzling problems we
have had with bats,² said Paul Cryan, a bat ecologist with the United
States Geological Survey. ³It¹s really startling that we¹ve not come up
with a smoking gun yet.²
Merlin Tuttle, the president of Bat Conservation International, an
education and research group in Austin, Tex., said: ³So far as we can
tell at this point, this may be the most serious threat to North
American bats we¹ve experienced in recorded history. ³It definitely
warrants immediate and careful attention.²

It drives me "bats" to read headers with the "greengrocer's
apostrophe".

Only consolation is that they misused it way back in Shakespeare's
time as well.

Grammar Granny

Read "Eats, Shoots & Leaves: The Zero Tolerance Approach to
Punctuation" by Lynne Truss, then you can be insufferably persnickety;-)
--

Billy

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

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.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

In article ,
"J. Clarke" wrote:


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.

--

I'd shoot the bear. But and it is a big but we are on their land and
they are helpless when the ice no longer provides a means to find food.
Walruses are currently forced to head towards land where the food supply
is minimal. We are talking about species extinction. How many oil
drilling folks were killed by bears in the last five years? How many
folks killed by human's in the middle east?

We seem to think every thing revolves about us humans but another but
we are connected in subtle way. Less pollinators = less food something
most folks don't care about. Lot's of annoying things like stinging
insects also polinate.
A perfect safe world aka sterile may be our demise. Look at children
with weak immune systems. Why no contact with death, destruction, decay
etc. Same stuff that my seeds love and need. Go Figure.

Bill

--
Garden in shade zone 5 S Jersey USA

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/