This Is A MAJOR Outrage

A pox on the poachers, a pox on all those who mutilate and kill animals to collect tusks, baby chimpanzees , shark fins. And on top of all of this, the Polar Bears are proof that not all bears make poo in the woods.

Apologies, bvt. It is a serious situation and, yeah, we should all be outraged. But the opportunity for punning was just too great a temptation to resist.

No need to apologize, I was just playing along. We should PAWS...get it? I'm not easily offended.

you have my seal of approval.

So a seal walked into a club...

...and the barman said, "Is this some kind of a joke?"

Let's see.. bad pun.. bad pun. Oh: Do the poachers really have just claws? ..

eh.



From the article: "Unfortunately, politics seem to have overtaken science". That about sums it up.

In all honesty I'd no idea hunting polar bears was permissible. Who the hell is buying the hides, wealthy eurogarbage?

I think it might be Sarah Palin, you betcha!

People who concoct sexual help out of animal bits, the chinese for one, though I don't mean to lump all chinese together. A friend of ours, a chinese man we first knew as vietnamese, insisted we stay at his house when we drove across state to see him, his wife, and his new restaurant. He gave (insisted) my husband a taste of a very expensive potent potion.

No sex that night though - we were tired and the beds were boards with a cloth over..

edit - not to make fun, we liked that man, and that was his culture, and that of many others, aphrodisiacs as sexually invigorating.
Wonder if viagra has had any effect on the market..

Sense, that made none.
The oozing hypocrisy from this article is so sour that it makes my eyes burn, especially seeing that the Americans, who almost: took the North American Bison to extinction (in their war against Native Americans), almost wiped out the National Symbol, the Bald Eagle due to excessive use of DDT & pesticides, and on and on it goes. We in the U.S. have done enough damage to the earth, and so much of that stone throwing attitude in people's minds is really the last thing we should be doing.
Yes, climate change is real and it is reducing polar bear habitat, and that will eventually, and already is, bad for polar bears. But there are many other things that directly affect polar bear populations, like the supply and demand of their food sources, and of course, hunting them. At some point in the future, polar bear habitat will be so far reduced that any human driven changes in their protection and management will matter little. I think we're still several decades away from that point (I defer to the experts). But reporting of the demise of polar bears from our hands is pure fiction, and that the reporting of global warming which may be happening, is not the pure result of the human race. The one sensible assertion that is almost never given for global warming is that it just may be a natural phase, independent of human sources of pollution. With only just over a hundred years of major human industrial exploitation, common sense only can come to this conclusion, without evidence to suggest the contrary.
I'd like to believe the complications of the matter is caused by the natives and what they see as "traditional,"as it is with the controversy over whale hunting. It's regulated now but if a moratorium is imposed, they will hunt them anyway, unregulated.

demon, "it's just a phase" is in fact regularly given by climate change deniers as a possible explanation. the problem is, there's no evidence for it. The major driver of earth's climate is the sun, and nothing the sun has done correlates with it. But the role of greenhosue gases was known for most of a century before that got tied to changing climate. CO2 is the major, tho not by any means sole, driver there, and we know more CO2 in the atmosphere will raise temperature, and we are pputting roughly double the increase in CO2 into the atmosphere every year (half of it gets absorbed by various carbon sinks). It's pretty certain that it's us, not nature.

Brace yourself, it's time someone rattled your associated bandwagon.
I don't deny that the climate is changing. This bandwagon you've jumped on goes alone on correlations from insufficient evidence (ground temperature data set, but last time I checked,temperature scales only goes back as 18th century) tied in with statistical computer models and theoretical what if's, which are all tied with further correlations. Any day, I'll take data (especially geophysical data that looks at very long (glacial-interglacial) timescales that extends well past 18th century) over computer modeled theories. There are ice core studies with data that suggests there are lag of carbond dioxide in ice cores behind the temperature rise. Then there have been data coming from the arctic of increase in output of methane gas.
From the data available, CO2 should be thought of as a feedback. CO2 does not initiate the warmings, but acts as an amplifier once they are underway.
The probably sequence of events started with some unknown (as of yet) process that caused the surrounding ocean around Antartica to warm. This unknown process also causes CO2 to start rising, about 800 years later. Then CO2 further warms the whole planet, because of its heat-trapping properties. This leads to even further CO2 release. You must understand that if humans are absent without any interventions from us, CO2 does rise and fall over time, due to exchanges of carbon among the biosphere, atmosphere, and ocean and, on the very longest timescales, the lithosphere (i.e. rocks, oil reservoirs, coal, carbonate rocks). The rates of those exchanges are now being completely overwhelmed by the rate at which we are extracting carbon from the latter set of reservoirs and converting it to atmospheric CO2.
But I'm open to data. Show me unbiased, sufficient data that directly shows that global warming is anthropogenic in origin, and I'll jump on your rickety bandwagon in a heart beat.

I'll grant you, the quote I posted above from the article is reaching a bit..
But you've submitted a whole lotta politickin', apparently in defense of killing polar bears.

I repeat, sense, that made none. You can advertise that slogan all you want, but it just shows the lack of reason behind your belief.
Science has no problems with evolution, science has no problem species dying and going extinct, and even to go far as to say, science has no problem with the all of the destruction of the carbon life form on earth. Science, by itself, is just the systematic study of reality. To science, in the next 100,000,000 years, a whole bunch of species (including ours) will come and go just like the last 100,000,000 years. To science, our opinions means nothing.
For all the ballyhoo about politics trumping "science," funny how it only applies to certain arguments. The bottom line is that our politics failed because the attempt to an accord did not address indigenous concerns and the US tried its usual bully-politics and demanded there be no amendments to address indigenous concerns. The rejection of the ban is not a rejection of science but of unreasonable alarmists and politicians with agendas.

oh, shut up.

MAke me!! But why so serious Katy? errrrr I meant Ossobuco?

sorry, bad form.

Osso was right the first time, just shut the hell up. BVT was indulging in a fantasy that most posters know from earlier exchanges. It was all fun, games and puns until you made it tedious. You are becoming unbearable, and polarizing, and just flat brown bear boring. Eat a snickers bar for cripes sake.

The pandamonium from your tantrum is immature and childish, young lady! Now go to your room and stay there until you've contemplated over your bearserk reaction.

For some reason I thought this thread was about polar bears. Where did global warming come in?