Iran Update...

Hayduke

Well-Known Member
It is not a first for me...and if my country was invaded...I am now a freedom fighter...or insurgent depending on which side your loyalties are on.

:leaf::peace::leaf:
 
K

Keenly

Guest
Oh so no answer has the mouse ... thought so.
no answer? i posted an article that i specifically wanted you to see, you call me a mouse and say i have no response?


your really good at mentally twisting things to make yourself feel good
 

CrackerJax

New Member
no answer? i posted an article that i specifically wanted you to see, you call me a mouse and say i have no response?


your really good at mentally twisting things to make yourself feel good

I asked you what the article meant , and I'm still waiting..... :roll:
 

CrackerJax

New Member
So pointing out the OBVIOUS to those actually paying attention is fear mongering?

How bout getting urself informed.

Don't be like Med Man.

Polar bears are NOT going extinct.
 

Woomeister

Well-Known Member
So pointing out the OBVIOUS to those actually paying attention is fear mongering?

How bout getting urself informed.

Don't be like Med Man.

Polar bears are NOT going extinct.[/QUOTE]

Ask the Experts: Are Polar Bear Populations Increasing?

Question: I'm confused about polar bear numbers. Some news reports state that polar bears should not be listed as a threatened species—they state that, in fact, their numbers are actually increasing. For example, the following paragraph appeared on the Fox News Web site:

"In the 1950s the polar bear population up north was estimated at 5,000. Today it's 20- to 25,000, a number that has either held steady over the last 20 years or has risen slightly. In Canada, the manager of wildlife resources for the Nunavut territory of Canada has found that the population there has increased by 25 percent."

If this is true, then why are scientists worried about population declines?

First, it's important to note that scientists lack historical data on polar bear numbers—they only have rough estimates. What we do know, though, is that in the 1960s, polar bear populations dropped precipitously due to over-hunting. When restrictions on polar bear harvests were put in place in the early 1970s, populations rebounded. That situation was a conservation success story ... but the current threat to polar bears is entirely different, and more dire.

Today's polar bears are facing the rapid loss of the sea-ice habitat that they rely on to hunt, breed, and, in some cases, to den. Last summer alone, the melt-off in the Arctic was equal to the size of Alaska, Texas, and the state of Washington combined—a shrinkage that was not predicted to happen until 2040. The loss of Arctic sea ice has resulted in a shorter hunting season for the bears, which has led to a scientifically documented decline in the best-studied population, Western Hudson Bay, and predictions of decline in the second best-studied population, the Southern Beaufort Sea.

Both populations are considered representative of what will likely occur in other polar bear populations should these warming trends continue. The Western Hudson Bay population has dropped by 22% since 1987. The Southern Beaufort Sea bears are showing the same signs of stress the Western Hudson Bay bears did before they crashed, including smaller adults and fewer yearling bears.

At the most recent meeting of the IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group (Copenhagen, 2009), scientists reported that of the 19 subpopulations of polar bears, eight are declining, three are stable, one is increasing, and seven have insufficient data on which to base a decision. (The number of declining populations has increased from five at the group's 2005 meeting.)

Some members of the press take advantage of the complexity by stating that "polar bears are not in trouble—their numbers have doubled since the 1960s." That's a disingenuous statement, of course. It is true that polar bear populations rebounded after over-hunting was restricted, but that situation has nothing to do with the threat polar bears now face: the loss of the sea ice habitat essential to their survival.
 

CrackerJax

New Member
Most of the data shows that PB's have increased dramatically since the 50's or 60's.

Facts are we can't stop the ice from melting up there, no matter how many taxes are collected. What's going to happen IS going to happen.

What will become of the PB's? Unknown...

What will become of human beings? Unknown ... :wink:

Hey, I'm glad I ran into you, I read a very interesting article today about ur favorite subject ... methane. Illuminating to say the least.
 

CrackerJax

New Member
Here it is, i pasted it over here for you all. :wink:

===================================================


Climate Change Is Nature's Way


It's our good luck one of Earth's many ice ages ended 12,000 years ago.


By HOWARD BLOOM

Climate change activists are right. We are in for walloping shifts in the planet's climate. Catastrophic shifts. But the activists are wrong about the reason. Very wrong. And the prescription for a solution—a $27 trillion solution—is likely to be even more wrong. Why?
Climate change is not the fault of man. It's Mother Nature's way. And sucking greenhouse gases from the atmosphere is too limited a solution. We have to be prepared for fire or ice, for fry or freeze. We have to be prepared for change.
We've been deceived by a stroke of luck. In the two million years during which we climbed from stone-tool wielding Homo erectus with sloping brows to high-foreheaded Homo urbanis, man the inventor of the city, we underwent 60 glaciations, 60 ice ages. And in the 120,000 years since we emerged in our current physiological shape as Homo sapiens, we've lived through 20 sudden global warmings. In most of those, temperatures have shot up by as much as 18 degrees within a mere 20 years.
All this took place without smokestacks and tailpipes. All this took place without the desecration of nature by modern man.
The stroke of luck that's misled us? The sheets of ice in whose shadow we made a living for two million years peeled back 12,000 years ago leaving a lush new Garden of Eden. In that Eden we invented agriculture, money, electronics and our current way of life. But that weather standstill has held on for an abnormally long amount of time. And it's very likely that this atypical weather truce shall someday pass.
Why? What's the real cause of the Earth's norm—a climate that rocks back and forth from steamy tropical heat to icy freeze? A climate that deposits fossilized seashells on mountaintops and makes dry land into seas and swamps?
The Earth is a traveler. Its angle as it sweeps around the sun produces the massive weather flips we call seasons—the dance from summer to winter and back again. But there's more. Our planet has a peculiar wobble—its precession. And that precession produces upheavals in our weather, weather alterations we cycle through every 22,000, 41,000 and 100,000 years. This is called the Milankovich cycle, named for the Serbian engineer and geophysicist who discovered it.
But the wobbles in our trip around the sun are just a start. The sun is a traveler, too. It circles the black hole at the galaxy's core every 226 million years. And it takes its tiny flock of planets with it. That means us. The result?
The journey around the galactic core is fraught with dangers. For example, every 143 million years we pass through a spiral arm of the galaxy, an arm that tosses tsunamis of cosmic rays our way. Those rays produce massive climate change. Then there's the innocent-sounding stuff astronomers call galactic "fluff," massive clouds of cosmic dust lurking in our solar system's path that also cause dramatic climate change.
Meanwhile, the sun itself is going through a cycle from birth to death. As a result of its maturation, good old reliable sol is 43% warmer today than it was when the Earth first gathered itself into a globe of planetesimals 4.5 billion years ago.
The bottom line? Weather changes and the occasional meteor have tossed this planet through roughly 142 mass extinctions since life began 3.85 billion years ago. That's an average of one mass extinction every 26.5 million years. Where did these mass die-offs come from? Nature. There were no human capitalists, industrialists or cultures of consumerism to blame.
We do not want to be the victims of one of these extinctions. Nor do we want to see whales, elephants and pandas go the way of trilobites and dinosaurs. We need to prepare for far more than just the changes we think we make. We need to prepare for the challenge that forced us to evolve into our modern, highly adaptable form. We have to realize that nature tosses us tests, and that we grow by outwitting her. We have to prepare for fire and ice. And we have to realize that Mother Nature is not nice.
Mr. Bloom is the author, most recently, of "The Genius of the Beast: A Radical Re-Vision of Capitalism," published last month by Prometheus Books. He is also founder and head of The Space Development Steering Committee.
 

NewGrowth

Well-Known Member
Most of the data shows that PB's have increased dramatically since the 50's or 60's.

Facts are we can't stop the ice from melting up there, no matter how many taxes are collected. What's going to happen IS going to happen.

What will become of the PB's? Unknown...

What will become of human beings? Unknown ... :wink:

Hey, I'm glad I ran into you, I read a very interesting article today about ur favorite subject ... methane. Illuminating to say the least.
You're right Jax the damn Polar Bears are not even dying they are actually doing better than ever. Just and the crock of shit that global warming scammers have trown in the mix.
 

edwardtheclean

Well-Known Member
If any of us, were in charge of the situation, i think it would have already been solved. but since we live in democracy, a fucked up one at that, (were people that want power, run for office to get power), we vote people in to make decisions and then elect their replacements to do a better job, and the whole time we complain about it. Iran knows no one is going to do anything, which is messed up because the U.S. could roll through them in a few days. and yes, the whole time, China and Russia does nothing, because nothing is going to happen regardless, Why not bank roll people that hate the U.S. and try to make a weapon and give it to the terrorists. We will watch and wait just like that dude in detroit that was on a terrorist watch list but was allowed to travel from seria to fuckin Detroit???? all our money we spend on this is stupid, did you guys see that tunnel in mexico? you could drive a truck through it......
 

CrackerJax

New Member
Iran has now placed Obama on the wrong side of history. Obama recognized that maniacal regime when the demonstrators were looking for some support ... uhhh ... that wasn't it.

Now the protests are escalating and yet, not a word from Obama.

What the heck is he waiting for?

Get out there and give them some support !!!

His foreign policies are atrocious so far...... abysmal.
 

edwardtheclean

Well-Known Member
no kidding, the GOP would love obama for that,(and america, and me and you) and the election coming up would be big time for them, the liberals would cry and then go after obama, but at least we could use our army for something other than getting sneak attacked,

but his foreign policy is to try to be nice and kind other than "you have 48 hours to leave", wouldnt you agree, half of America would prefer peace and prosper;)
 

Hayduke

Well-Known Member
Iran has now placed Obama on the wrong side of history. Obama recognized that maniacal regime when the demonstrators were looking for some support ... uhhh ... that wasn't it.

Now the protests are escalating and yet, not a word from Obama.

What the heck is he waiting for?

Get out there and give them some support !!!

His foreign policies are atrocious so far...... abysmal.
We are creating unrest in the country between the other two we have occupied for going on a decade. We paid good money for this. What the hell is he supposed to say...besides sorry?

:leaf::peace::leaf:
 
Top