If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Columbus Dispatch)   Polar-bear expert advocates greener living and slower speeds as ways to save the bears, by making us more delicious and easier to catch. With helpful pic of what a polar bear catching a polar bear expert may look like   (dispatch.com) divider line 49
    More: Unlikely, polar bears, photos, expert advocates, Ohio General Assembly, speeds  
•       •       •

2844 clicks; posted to Geek » on 14 May 2013 at 4:44 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



49 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2013-05-14 04:09:25 PM
img843.imageshack.us
 
2013-05-14 05:04:49 PM
The Ohio legislature's recent decision to increase speed limits on rural interstates to 70 mph is the polar opposite of what should be done, the world's leading polar-bear expert said today in Columbus.

I, for one, oppose polar bears living in Ohio!
 
2013-05-14 05:08:16 PM
As an American motorist enjoying my state's 85mph speed limits on IH-10 (70 mph limit is gay) I advocate that the Polar bears become better swimmers and/or evolve gills and fins.
 
2013-05-14 05:13:50 PM

The Stealth Hippopotamus: [img843.imageshack.us image 640x480]


Sure, if you go count them or ask the people living there you'll find the populations are booming, and no unusual ice melt is happening, either. But the people saying otherwise are scientists. Who are we to argue with scientists?
 
2013-05-14 05:28:25 PM
Polar bears want to eat me, so I think I'm going to drive as fast as possible.
 
2013-05-14 05:32:51 PM
FTA: "What we should be doing is talking about slower speeds," said Steven Amstrup

If you significantly drop the speed limit on the interstate expressways, people will just start flying more, which offsets any emissions savings.

If you really want to go after things that expel a huge amount of pollution, target coal and oil fired turbines in power plants and cargo ships.  Target oil and methane wells that burn stranded gas or who inadvertently leak light gases into the atmosphere.


/takes long enough to get anywhere in the west even with 70+ speed limits
//can't drive 55 man
 
2013-05-14 05:34:27 PM
I, for one, welcome our new polar bear overlords.
 
2013-05-14 05:34:40 PM
jordanbinkerd.files.wordpress.com
3.bp.blogspot.com
www.comics101.com
 
2013-05-14 05:50:37 PM
It is completely pointless to sit around talking about driving hybrid cars and recycling and patting ourselves on the back for marginally reducing our per capita carbon footprint by 5%. Any grade school student can calculate that the total human carbon footprint equals the per capita footprint times the population. As long as the population keeps increasing, we will never reduce our carbon output. I can drive a Hummer and I'm doing more for the environment than any Prius driver who has even a single child. I want to smash the goddamn windows out of every hybrid car with a baby seat in the back.
 
2013-05-14 05:54:43 PM
I know that I go to polar bear experts when I want to determine highway speeds and climatology.
 
2013-05-14 05:57:27 PM
FTFA:  The Ohio legislature's recent decision to increase speed limits on rural interstates to 70 mph is the polar opposite of what should be done, the world's leading polar-bear expert said today in Columbus.

(iseewhatyoudidthere.jpg)
 
2013-05-14 06:35:27 PM

Tommy Moo: As long as the population keeps increasing, we will never reduce our carbon output.


The U.S. birth rate dropped below the replacement rate a long time ago (look up "demographic shift"). The U.S. population has been increasing only due to immigration.
And the U.S. carbon dioxide output has been dropping for years. We're almost down to the 1990 level.
 
2013-05-14 06:44:26 PM

Tommy Moo: It is completely pointless to sit around talking about driving hybrid cars and recycling and patting ourselves on the back for marginally reducing our per capita carbon footprint by 5%. Any grade school student can calculate that the total human carbon footprint equals the per capita footprint times the population. As long as the population keeps increasing, we will never reduce our carbon output. I can drive a Hummer and I'm doing more for the environment than any Prius driver who has even a single child. I want to smash the goddamn windows out of every hybrid car with a baby seat in the back.


Well that's just counter productive as more energy will be wasted making and transporting a new window.
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2013-05-14 06:45:45 PM
What the lead sentence looked like before the newsroom Mad Libs game:

The (noun)'s recent decision to increase speed limits on rural interstates to (number) mph is the polar opposite of what should be done, the world's leading (noun) expert said today in (city).
 
2013-05-14 06:50:35 PM
I'm shocked that this is even worth printing. How come there were no nearby experts in physics & automotive engineering available to slap the stupid out of this guy. Because polarbear man has no clue what he's talking about.

Overall fuel consumption is a function of fuel consumption at a given speed and the amount of time in travel. Which is why I can get 42mpg going 70mph and less than 30mpg when stuck behind the asshat in overloaded the container truck going 45 in a 60mph zone. If polarbear man knew anything about physics he would be advocating open season on anyone impeding traffic.
 
2013-05-14 07:06:57 PM

seniorgato: I know that I go to polar bear experts when I want to determine highway speeds and climatology.


Bearology is a highly advanced science, much like Climatology. Do you even science?

I didn't think so.
 
2013-05-14 08:01:31 PM

WelldeadLink: Tommy Moo: As long as the population keeps increasing, we will never reduce our carbon output.

The U.S. birth rate dropped below the replacement rate a long time ago (look up "demographic shift"). The U.S. population has been increasing only due to immigration.
And the U.S. carbon dioxide output has been dropping for years. We're almost down to the 1990 level.


It doesn't matter if it's only increasing due to immigration. Immigrants still use carbon and have children.

The U.S. CO2 output has only dipped because of the recession. There are no baseline changes here. You don't see a huge drop like that because people decided to buy hybrid cars; it's because people are driving less and buying less stuff, which means fewer truck shipments to stores. If the economy completely recovers, that will rocket back up and beyond where it was.
 
2013-05-14 08:17:17 PM
i.imgur.com

/obscure?
 
2013-05-14 08:24:41 PM
It takes a truly special kind of mental disorder to think that lowering or maintaining speed limits in parts of the US will save polar bears. The arrogance is astounding.
 
2013-05-14 08:30:52 PM

Tommy Moo: The U.S. CO2 output has only dipped because of the recession. There are no baseline changes here. You don't see a huge drop like that because people decided to buy hybrid cars; it's because people are driving less and buying less stuff, which means fewer truck shipments to stores. If the economy completely recovers, that will rocket back up and beyond where it was.


Part of it has also been the result of the recent dip in methane prices, which has shifted some of the country's power generation from coal to CNG.  As long as prices for CNG remain low and the EPA increases restrictions for coal emissions, you'll see lower overall CO2 emissions.
 
2013-05-14 09:16:38 PM
You know, I like to think of myself as an environmentally conscious person: I take care not to litter, I recycle plastic and glass, I drive a car that gets over 40 mpg on the highway.

But you know what? Fark the polar bears. I don't give a rat's ass about them. If Coca-Cola hadn't stuck them on the side of its bottles as advertising, no one--save hippies--would care that they're endangered. They're an overspecialized large predator with a tiny ecological niche that should have died off with other such animals at the end of the last glacial period. If polar bears die off, other predators will take their place. Bears are giant nasty vicious animals who really don't give a fark that you collect soda bottles with animal mascots on them, and they will rip your face off. Fark bears.

I hear they taste good, though.
 
2013-05-14 09:44:50 PM

Tommy Moo: It doesn't matter if it's only increasing due to immigration. Immigrants still use carbon and have children.


Doesn't matter. Carbon dioxide emissions have decreased despite a population increase.
 
2013-05-14 10:00:10 PM

J. Frank Parnell: The Stealth Hippopotamus: [img843.imageshack.us image 640x480]

Sure, if you go count them or ask the people living there you'll find the populations are booming, and no unusual ice melt is happening, either. But the people saying otherwise are scientists. Who are we to argue with scientists?


I thought that the people living there were the ones saying the populations are shrinking, and there is unusual ice melt. But the people saying otherwise are republicans and fox news. Who are we to argue with republicans or fox news?
 
2013-05-14 10:12:31 PM
23 posts in and not a single mention of the horrors of these godless killing machines?

Fark, I am disappoint.
 
2013-05-14 10:18:41 PM

Vlad_the_Inaner: [i.imgur.com image 850x478]

/obscure?


Nope.  I am sure he tasted good.
 
2013-05-14 10:49:51 PM

HighZoolander: I thought that the people living there were the ones saying the populations are shrinking, and there is unusual ice melt.


The main people saying populations are shrinking are climatologists and bearologists who i'm not sure have ever actually been there. From the sounds of it they made some dire predictions and simply pretended the predictions happened, but they really didn't. And this is the best i can find quickly on the ice melt.
 
2013-05-14 10:50:26 PM
Good news is that the expert looks old and slow you only have to out run him.
 
2013-05-14 10:51:03 PM

Farabor: 23 posts in and not a single mention of the horrors of these godless killing machines?

Fark, I am disappoint.


If you'll look at the pic, you'll see the delight of the godless killing machine catching a godless killing machine expert.
 
2013-05-14 11:15:28 PM

J. Frank Parnell: The Stealth Hippopotamus: [img843.imageshack.us image 640x480]

Sure, if you go count them or ask the people living there you'll find the populations are booming, and no unusual ice melt is happening, either. But the people saying otherwise are scientists. Who are we to argue with scientists?


10 years ago in South Dakota.....
Scientists:  There are no mountain lions in SD.
People:  Yes there are we saw some.
Scientists:  Those were bobcats.  No mountain lions in SD for 50 years.
People:  Yeah but that one killed my dog.  And here are the pictures, scat, and tracks.
Scientists:  Jouvenile male.  Probably lost and hungry.  No wonder!
People:  Yeah but there are a whole bunch now and here's some photos of mothers with little ones.
Scientitsts:  You are imagining things.  That's a coyote.
State:  yeah this fall there's a season because we have an overpopulation problem and there's a limit of 100.
Scientists:  You'll wipe out all the mountain lions!
People: What mountain lions?
Scientists:  ummm....I meant...errrr...ummm yeah we knew they were there but had them all collared.  You'll ruin our research!
After season state:  Turns out hunters got 100 and only 10 were collared so yeah looks like there were way more than we thought.
Scientists:  unpossible!  The collars must have been removed.  We had all of them collared! and there were only 20 in the whole state!*

Five years later rinse/repeat with wolves in the NE part of the state (not a season yet though).  Some dude shot a couple thinking they were coyotes.  Scientists:  Don't shoot the wolves!  People:  I thought you said there were no wolves?*

*some "facts" may have been embellished or exaggerated for effect.
 
2013-05-15 12:04:58 AM

skinbubble: Vlad_the_Inaner: [i.imgur.com image 850x478]

/obscure?

Nope.  I am sure he tasted good.


Timothy Treadwell was, as the British would say, a "nutter."
 
2013-05-15 12:27:29 AM
Approves

thumbs4.ebaystatic.com
 
2013-05-15 12:37:03 AM

Forbidden Doughnut: skinbubble: Vlad_the_Inaner: [i.imgur.com image 850x478]

/obscure?

Nope.  I am sure he tasted good.

Timothy Treadwell was, as the British would say, a "nutter."


Poor gent didn't Treadwellenough.
 
2013-05-15 12:45:03 AM
That's funny... Pretty much every automatic I've owned has had a shift point somewhere around 60 mph. This means that I am going faster at lower RPMs than before it shifted. I guess polar bear experts don't do math and don't drive automatics?
 
2013-05-15 01:05:35 AM

Tommy Moo: It is completely pointless to sit around talking about driving hybrid cars and recycling and patting ourselves on the back for marginally reducing our per capita carbon footprint by 5%. Any grade school student can calculate that the total human carbon footprint equals the per capita footprint times the population. As long as the population keeps increasing, we will never reduce our carbon output. I can drive a Hummer and I'm doing more for the environment than any Prius driver who has even a single child. I want to smash the goddamn windows out of every hybrid car with a baby seat in the back.


Very much this, but my indictment is for the politicians (Gore, e.g). What are we doing to save the environment at the policy level (through population curbing)? NOTHING!

But the democrats want us to keep having 10 babies? Why? Because 10 babies is 10 poor, poorly educated, stupid lazy bums. And 10 poor, poorly educated, stupid lazy bums is 10 poor, poorly educated, stupid lazy democrat voting bums.
 
2013-05-15 02:29:41 AM

SevenizGud: Tommy Moo: It is completely pointless to sit around talking about driving hybrid cars and recycling and patting ourselves on the back for marginally reducing our per capita carbon footprint by 5%. Any grade school student can calculate that the total human carbon footprint equals the per capita footprint times the population. As long as the population keeps increasing, we will never reduce our carbon output. I can drive a Hummer and I'm doing more for the environment than any Prius driver who has even a single child. I want to smash the goddamn windows out of every hybrid car with a baby seat in the back.

Very much this, but my indictment is for the politicians (Gore, e.g). What are we doing to save the environment at the policy level (through population curbing)? NOTHING!

But the democrats want us to keep having 10 babies? Why? Because 10 babies is 10 poor, poorly educated, stupid lazy bums. And 10 poor, poorly educated, stupid lazy bums is 10 poor, poorly educated, stupid lazy democrat voting bums.


Replace "democrats" with "Evangelicals" and you have a true statement, in terms of stupid, lazy Repugnant voting bums.
 
2013-05-15 03:16:04 AM
He's trying to grow all his own food, restricting his use of gas-powered vehicles and living a "green" lifestyle.

Um, that first bit doesn't actually help much, really.  The energy required to move that far out and sustain that level of separation from the core of society tends to end up being expressed in carbon anyhow, and you usually do more damage than you save.  Got to manufacture a lot of chemicals to allow a non-expert to grow his own food, for instance.
 
2013-05-15 05:02:25 AM
"Our most important finding was that polar bears are entirely dependent on the surface of the sea ice," he said.

That is where they locate mates, find the seals they feed on, den with their young and spend 93 percent of their time, Amstrup said.

"Sea ice isn't just a platform - it's the basis of the food chain that's supporting the bears," he said, noting that the bears eat seals, which in turn eat arctic cod, which eat copepods, which eat the diatoms that live on the base of the ice.


Seems like if we built enough zoos we could take care of all of those dependencies.
 
2013-05-15 05:59:35 AM

J. Frank Parnell: HighZoolander: I thought that the people living there were the ones saying the populations are shrinking, and there is unusual ice melt.

The main people saying populations are shrinking are climatologists and bearologists who i'm not sure have ever actually been there. From the sounds of it they made some dire predictions and simply pretended the predictions happened, but they really didn't. And this is the best i can find quickly on the ice melt.


Who are we to argue with someone who thinks Polar Bears live on the West Antarctic Ice Sheet?
 
2013-05-15 06:52:37 AM
I'd just like to point out one important thing:  Do NOT recycle thin-wall water bottles.

Thin-wall water bottles are designed to not be recycled.  You can recycle them but you're hurting the environment.
They're designed to be used as fuel after they're empty of water.  They've already saved all the money they can by not weighing much at all.
Adding to their expense by recycling them into a form of plastic that nobody uses will simply degrade the quality of any plastics they're mixed in with or make them sit around in the environment MUCH longer than they otherwise would.  They should be burned with the paper and yard waste to fuel recovery plants.
There is NO gain from recycling them even if you crush them flat.  They waste the fuel of the recycling trucks right off the bat.
Throw them out or don't buy them at all.

DO recycle their caps and neck-ring.
 
2013-05-15 07:25:02 AM
He's right that cars are the problem but speed limits won't make a huge difference. We need to get people OUT of their cars entirely, as much as possible. That means bike paths and bike parking in urban and suburban areas, more walkable areas, and taking out wide roads and highways in many urban areas. More trains would be helpful too.

That said, the problem will and is slowly fixing itself as oil gets more expensive and people can't afford to drive...

In any case, though, it's far too late for the arctic ice. It will be gone in summer in a few years at most. That ship has sailed.
 
2013-05-15 07:49:16 AM

Christian Bale: SevenizGud: Tommy Moo: It is completely pointless to sit around talking about driving hybrid cars and recycling and patting ourselves on the back for marginally reducing our per capita carbon footprint by 5%. Any grade school student can calculate that the total human carbon footprint equals the per capita footprint times the population. As long as the population keeps increasing, we will never reduce our carbon output. I can drive a Hummer and I'm doing more for the environment than any Prius driver who has even a single child. I want to smash the goddamn windows out of every hybrid car with a baby seat in the back.

Very much this, but my indictment is for the politicians (Gore, e.g). What are we doing to save the environment at the policy level (through population curbing)? NOTHING!

But the democrats want us to keep having 10 babies? Why? Because 10 babies is 10 poor, poorly educated, stupid lazy bums. And 10 poor, poorly educated, stupid lazy bums is 10 poor, poorly educated, stupid lazy democrat voting bums.

Replace "democrats" with "Evangelicals" and you have a true statement, in terms of stupid, lazy Repugnant voting bums.


Yeah, so basically Democrats want lots of poor, black, urban babies, and Republicans want lots of poor, white, rural babies. None of them is looking out for our interests. Party always comes before country.
 
2013-05-15 07:55:21 AM
This guy approves:

img.thesun.co.uk
www.tuxboard.com
2.bp.blogspot.com

...or this bear approves. Either way, it looks like.
 
2013-05-15 07:57:31 AM

HighZoolander: J. Frank Parnell: The Stealth Hippopotamus: [img843.imageshack.us image 640x480]

Sure, if you go count them or ask the people living there you'll find the populations are booming, and no unusual ice melt is happening, either. But the people saying otherwise are scientists. Who are we to argue with scientists?

I thought that the people living there were the ones saying the populations are shrinking...


It depends who you ask. As is made clear in the link provided by J. Frank Parnell some local communities have a vested interest in inflating Polar Bear numbers because the amount they are allowed to hunt is directly tied to population count, and hunting Polar Bears is extremely lucrative financially.
 
2013-05-15 09:02:16 AM
s.wsj.net

Why are leftists anti-science?
 
2013-05-15 09:13:10 AM
brandent


*some "facts" may have been embellished or exaggerated for effect.

*rolls eyes*... Like the fact *scoff that polar bears are disappearing when numbers prove otherwise?
 
2013-05-15 09:44:16 AM
I have found that people calling themselves experts are usually far from it. As Heinlein said "Listen patiently while the 'experts' explain why something cannot be done... then go do it."
 
2013-05-15 10:12:13 AM

OnlyM3: [s.wsj.net image 299x145]

Why are leftists anti-science?


That looks like a bunch of figures cobbled together from a range of studies occurring at different times with probable differences in methodology and probable differences in scope (e.g. geographical). In other words, they may not be like-for-like comparisons, which is what an actual scientific study would attempt to obtain.

The Polar Bear Specialist Group are one of the names listed in the sources of that graphic (albeit incorrectly referred to as the Polar Bear Study Group, which doesn't appear to exist). They host a <a href="http://pbsg.npolar.no/en/dynamic/app/ ">map showing details of different Polar Bear subpopulations around the Arctic</a>. Of 19 subpopulations, they find 8 declining, 3 stable and 1 increasing. The remainder (7) are determined to be inconclusive from available data. The overall conclusion is that total Polar Bear numbers have likely declined over the past few decades and that's based on a current total population estimate of ~25,000. The idea that numbers have genuinely increased from 5,000 to 25,000 since 1950 is, frankly, crazy.
 
2013-05-15 10:22:28 AM

brandent: J. Frank Parnell: The Stealth Hippopotamus: [img843.imageshack.us image 640x480]

Sure, if you go count them or ask the people living there you'll find the populations are booming, and no unusual ice melt is happening, either. But the people saying otherwise are scientists. Who are we to argue with scientists?

10 years ago in South Dakota.....
Scientists:  There are no mountain lions in SD.
People:  Yes there are we saw some.
Scientists:  Those were bobcats.  No mountain lions in SD for 50 years.
People:  Yeah but that one killed my dog.  And here are the pictures, scat, and tracks.
Scientists:  Jouvenile male.  Probably lost and hungry.  No wonder!
People:  Yeah but there are a whole bunch now and here's some photos of mothers with little ones.
Scientitsts:  You are imagining things.  That's a coyote.
State:  yeah this fall there's a season because we have an overpopulation problem and there's a limit of 100.
Scientists:  You'll wipe out all the mountain lions!
People: What mountain lions?
Scientists:  ummm....I meant...errrr...ummm yeah we knew they were there but had them all collared.  You'll ruin our research!
After season state:  Turns out hunters got 100 and only 10 were collared so yeah looks like there were way more than we thought.
Scientists:  unpossible!  The collars must have been removed.  We had all of them collared! and there were only 20 in the whole state!*

Five years later rinse/repeat with wolves in the NE part of the state (not a season yet though).  Some dude shot a couple thinking they were coyotes.  Scientists:  Don't shoot the wolves!  People:  I thought you said there were no wolves?*

*some "facts" may have been embellished or exaggerated for effect.


This is what happens when you have stupid people confusing media with science.
 
2013-05-15 11:45:59 AM

dillengest: OnlyM3: [s.wsj.net image 299x145]

Why are leftists anti-science?

That looks like a bunch of figures cobbled together from a range of studies occurring at different times with probable differences in methodology and probable differences in scope (e.g. geographical). In other words, they may not be like-for-like comparisons, which is what an actual scientific study would attempt to obtain.

The Polar Bear Specialist Group are one of the names listed in the sources of that graphic (albeit incorrectly referred to as the Polar Bear Study Group, which doesn't appear to exist). They host a <a href="http://pbsg.npolar.no/en/dynamic/app/ ">map showing details of different Polar Bear subpopulations around the Arctic</a>. Of 19 subpopulations, they find 8 declining, 3 stable and 1 increasing. The remainder (7) are determined to be inconclusive from available data. The overall conclusion is that total Polar Bear numbers have likely declined over the past few decades and that's based on a current total population estimate of ~25,000. The idea that numbers have genuinely increased from 5,000 to 25,000 since 1950 is, frankly, crazy.


The idea that anyone trusts a word uttered by so called scientists these days after all the lies and mistruths uttered is crazy. Credibility zero until money is no longer a factor in research.
 
Displayed 49 of 49 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report