Listing polar bears as threatened "would establish a dangerous precedent based on mathematical models instead of biological observations," Sen. Ted Stevens said Tuesday.

Sen. Ted Stevens? They have locked that crook up yet?

xBIGxEASYx: Sen. Ted Stevens? They have locked that crook up yet?

Not a chance. Without him, Alaska would be screwed over in terms of earmarks. Most folks here don't care for him, but our roads would be in even worse shape without the money he brings in.

Computer models are never wrong.
Just ask the National Weather Service.

See what not passing the Protect America bill did?!

Man.

/Warrentless wiretapping yahoo

Polar bear thread! Flocke and Knut reporting!













/because baby polar bears are better than another global warming or ANWR debate

Not sure what motivation they could possibly have for denying that. Its not like they possess a massive amount of such a product which, should the endangerment of polar bears not be denied, might need to be considered correlated to such endangerment.
/In all reasonableness, however, if fossil fuels do significantly contribute to global warming, it makes little sense to penalize only Alaska (merely because they are a sensitive region)when the phenomenon is by definition global.

Damn good headline, subby.

Good luck getting this one.

Gee, a state soaked with politicians joined at the hip with big oil, speaking out against environmental protections? Inconceivable!

they're just pissed that their annual checks might start shrinking and might actually have to work for that extra oil money that each citizen gets (which most actually blow on crap they don't really need), but then again, why the hell do people live up there?

Approves

Just more pandaing to environmentalists. They photoshop a kodiak instamatic and right away it's a grizzly environmental disaster.

/right next to nothin'

Greedy bastards.

Atvar: Not a chance. Without him, Alaska would be screwed over in terms of earmarks. Most folks here don't care for him, but our roads would be in even worse shape without the money he brings in.

At least your roads will actually go to other destinations, though.

ndotseth: Computer models are never wrong.
Just ask the National Weather Service.

That's a silly answer. Sure computer models can be wrong, but we don't know that this one is. We do know that Ted Stevens is a corrupt senator who is in bed with oil companies.

Who to trust on environmental issues: A computer, that may or may not be correct or a glorified oil lobbyist. Hmmmmmmmmmmmm

I Said: That's a silly answer. Sure computer models can be wrong, but we don't know that this one is. We do know that Ted Stevens is a corrupt senator who is in bed with oil companies.

Who to trust on environmental issues: A computer, that may or may not be correct or a glorified oil lobbyist. Hmmmmmmmmmmmm


Where the heck is this gibberish about mathematical models coming from? The polar bear observations seem to be coming from a variety of sources.

Maybe Ted read about it on the intertubes.

Listing a species as "threatened" means it is likely to become endangered. "Endangered" is even more dire and means a species is in danger of extinction throughout all or much of its range.

They're arguing against making it 'threatened' because it would make
"a law with the best of intentions...subverted by the lawyers for the extreme environmental organizations and the liberal Democratic leadership," So, once again, Republicans ignore science when politically necessary. Farking idiots.

Atvar: xBIGxEASYx: Sen. Ted Stevens? They have locked that crook up yet?

Not a chance. Without him, Alaska would be screwed over in terms of earmarks. Most folks here don't care for him, but our roads would be in even worse shape without the money he brings in.

Same excuse people give for voting for John Murtha

Atvar: xBIGxEASYx: Sen. Ted Stevens? They have locked that crook up yet?

Not a chance. Without him, Alaska would be screwed over in terms of earmarks. Most folks here don't care for him, but our roads would be in even worse shape without the money he brings in.

how does he send the money? through a series of tubes? or in a dumptruck?

Shaggy_C: They're arguing against making it 'threatened' because it would make
"a law with the best of intentions...subverted by the lawyers for the extreme environmental organizations and the liberal Democratic leadership," So, once again, Republicans ignore science when politically necessary. Farking idiots.

That is exactly what's going on.

Any time the republican party attaches the word "extreme" to any cause or person, they are essentially saying "I have no facts to argue with you, but I think you're a jerk so you must be wrong about everything."

It only took the party decades to agree with science on the existence of global warming. They are the anti-science party and should not be trusted when discussing the issue.