<< MONEY NICKED ~ MAIN ~ NOBODY LIKES BAGS >>
BEARS HUNGRY, FORESTS GROWTHY
This site on polar bear cannibalism, June 2006:
Maybe they just like eating other polar bears.
Turns out they really do, even if they’re well-fed. (This evidence of indiscriminate polar munchiness may slightly dent Tara Brown’s global warming theory.) Meanwhile, trees are everywhere:
Claims that tropical forests are declining cannot be backed up by hard evidence, according to new research from the University of Leeds.
This major challenge to conventional thinking is the surprising finding of a study published today in the Proceedings of the US National Academy of Sciences by Dr Alan Grainger, Senior Lecturer in Geography and one of the world’s leading experts on tropical deforestation.
“Every few years we get a new estimate of the annual rate of tropical deforestation,” said Dr Grainger. “They always seem to show that these marvellous forests have only a short time left. Unfortunately, everybody assumes that deforestation is happening and fails to look at the bigger picture – what is happening to forest area as a whole ...
“If there is no long-term net decline it suggests that deforestation is being accompanied by a lot of natural reforestation that we have not spotted.”
The carbon offsetting industry won’t be happy about this.
(Via Hal G.P. Colebatch and Garth Godsman)
UPDATE. The NYT:
Corporations and shoppers in the United States spent more than $54 million last year on carbon offset credits toward tree planting, wind farms, solar plants and other projects to balance the emissions created by, say, using a laptop computer or flying on a jet.
But where exactly is that money going?
(Via Toby B.)
UPDATE II. Bears have a long history of eating stuff.
“If there is no long-term net decline it suggests that deforestation is being accompanied by a lot of natural reforestation that we have not spotted.”
Sure. Bird poop. The very small porton of it that falls on the ground (as opposed to falling on my car) is loaded with seeds. And squirrels, bustling around all through the autumn, burying acorns (Mr. Squirrel to Mrs. Squirrel: “Quit nagging me! I don’t need to draw a map, I know exactly where I put ‘em.”)
New ad campaign..
Polar Bear, it’s what’s for dinner
or….
Polar Bear, the ‘other’ white meat
(okay, probably only the seppos are gonna get these…..)
Posted by Old Tanker on 2008 01 09 at 02:17 PM • permalinkHmmmm.
This is because the soil in the rainforest is only capable of sustaining a few crop planting/harvests before it’s mostly played out. So the slash-and-burn farmers pack up, move over to the next section and clear that out while the previously farmed bit of jungle is left to return to it’s natural state.
Posted by memomachine on 2008 01 09 at 02:37 PM • permalinkI can imagine the new motto for the envirotards: “REALITY DOESN’T EXIST”.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2008 01 09 at 03:00 PM • permalinkTigers in Vietnam don’t have to eat each other. Humans do it for them.
Posted by SwinishCapitalist on 2008 01 09 at 05:01 PM • permalinkEven when they later realised that the mothers had failed to bond with their offspring-officials said it was vital that the tiny cubs should be reared “naturally”, even admitting they would leave them to starve.
The obvious parallel with the Knut saga is mentioned shortly afterwards. This is where I don’t get these ‘people’. Sometimes you can trace back their line of thought to one or two mistakes/misconceptions or whatever, but, allowing for that, understand the rest of their argument. You still don’t agree, but you see where they’re coming from.
Then you have these cases, presumably serious imbalances in neurotransmitter chemicals, where the whole synaptic process seems to have broken down into some horrible oversimplified, primitive limbic reflexive pattern you hesitate to call ‘thought’.
Recently, Andrew Bolt has been on his soap box regarding the extreme levels of child abuse in Aboriginal communities and linking the lack of protection to social workers’ fear of recreating another (of the mythical)Stolen Generation.
Both scenarios stem from this irrational, reverse-racist (or reverse-speciest in the bear case) view of white humans/humans in general.
I’ll try this analogy: you’ve got a TV, a Civilization Society trinitron 2000. It’s no longer brand new. There’s some dust and dirt, the reception’s not great in rainy weather and every so often there are problems with the vertical hold. The TV cost you a lot and they don’t make anything half as good anymore. There are no repairmen*, you have to do it yourself, or with help. What do you do - clean it, buy a better aeriel, get up off your bottom and adjust the vertical hold when it plays up? Or do you sit there complaining, throwing food and empty beer cans at it and, finally, the remote control? When it doesn’t miraculously do what you want, you eventually do get up, stomp on the remote and take a baseball bat to the screen.
* After years of you and others phoning the company and complaining about the problems, they release (thanks to a few bright sparks who, growing up with such a TV, decided to become electrical engineers) the Society Civilisation trintron 2001 with improved picture, sound, high-definition in-built digital tuner and a reliable vertical hold.
I’ll try this analogy: imagine Dminor’s analogy as a… no, that won’t work.
Posted by SwinishCapitalist on 2008 01 09 at 05:12 PM • permalinkAnd while I’m thinking of it…...can they train the mama polar bear to save the skins of the cubs? Think of the great slippers they would make!
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2008 01 09 at 05:27 PM • permalinkThey best way to prevent Poley Cannibalism? Sue the Feds.
Environmentalists Plan to Sue Feds Over Polar Bears
“They are already drowning, starving, and resorting to cannibalism because they don’t have access to their usual food sources. The sea ice retreat is happening much faster than forecasted.”
Litigation. It’s always the answer.
Posted by spot_the_dog on 2008 01 09 at 07:06 PM • permalink* It’s the Polar Bears drowning, starving, etc; not the environmentalists.
Posted by spot_the_dog on 2008 01 09 at 07:08 PM • permalinkBut where exactly is that money going?
This is why I flat out refuse to buy a single carbon credit. I suspect much of it is going to “overhead”, like with a lot of the less reputable “charities”.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2008 01 09 at 07:20 PM • permalink* It’s the Polar Bears drowning, starving, etc; not the environmentalists.
Damn. I was looking so forward to waching polar bears feast on dead environmentalists.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2008 01 09 at 07:22 PM • permalink#33
“Corporations and shoppers in the United States spent more than $54 million last year on carbon offset credits toward tree planting, wind farms, solar plants and other projects to balance the emissions created by, say, using a laptop computer or flying on a jet.
“But where exactly is that money going?
“The Federal Trade Commission, which regulates advertising claims, raised the question Tuesday in its first hearing in a series on green marketing, this one focusing on carbon offsets.
“With the rapid growth of green programs like carbon offsets, “there’s a heightened potential for deception,” said Deborah Platt Majoras, chairwoman of the commission.”
Other people are finally starting to ask questions… Better late than never. What will duped consumers do if/when some of these programmes are uncovered as fraudulent? More lawsuits?
Posted by spot_the_dog on 2008 01 09 at 07:49 PM • permalinkTo actually pay money to these latter day Tetzels who then pay the poor of the world to remain energy poor is the ultimate obscenity.
This isn’t liberalism, its Stalinism. And yes, I’m looking at you Mr Gore.
Greens are always happy to have the amenities of civilization so long as they can make sure there are plenty of brown people mired in crushing poverty to atone for their sins. Plus, those cute indigineous tribespersons make these totally awesome beads, and they have an unspoiled, more authentic lifestyle. And they’re way more spiritual than we are.
Posted by Steve Skubinna on 2008 01 09 at 10:14 PM • permalink27. When I was little, I sometimes wouldn’t eat meat. I hated hamburgers and steak and chicken.
I realized later that here in michigan we have tradition of overcooking out meat. We cook the hell out of it. I realized meat was good when I started eating it rare. (when I was little I would eat raw ground beef while mom was cooking, but hated hamburgers and when it came to dinner, I was a vegetarian.)
A little message you can pass on to the clueless control freaks you know. (Like at zoological gardens and animal welfare societies ec.)
Stressed mothers kill their young. Humans, polar bears, moonbats, when a mother of any species is under stress they will kill their young as a way of relieving that stress. (You really don’t want to freak out a moonbat, it can get (Al) gory.)
The best remedy is to give mother and child privacy, and leave them alone. Don’t bother them. Don’t weigh, measure, annoy them. When they’re ready to bring the kid out into the world, they’ll do it.
You don’t have to be in control of everything. And when you understand that, you can then work on the control freaks in government.
Posted by mythusmage on 2008 01 10 at 06:40 PM • permalinkJust a reminder: Priced-to-sell offsets.
Polar Bear Meat:
Although polar bear meat is considered delicious it is never eaten raw like other meats because it carries many parasites. The polar bear liver is never eaten or fed to the dogs because it causes Vitamin A poisoning, which results in severe illness or even death. Polar bear meat, like most country foods, is an excellent source of iron and protein. Polar bear fat provides Inuit with Vitamin A and omega-3 fatty acids which helps reduce the risk of heart disease. Polar bear meat is usually baked or boiled in a soup or stew.
Cheers
Posted by J.M. Heinrichs on 2008 01 10 at 07:57 PM • permalink
Page 1 of 1 pages
Members:
Login | Register
| Member List
In a severely unfriendly environment like the polar ice cap, eating your competition make real good sense.