Comments on: Pipeline Palin’s Crusade Against Polar Bears

By: Ameer Hassan

Ameer Hassan — Tue, 24 Feb 2009 00:31:59 +0000

This is just a beginning, a beginning of worst days to come for our gorgeous polar bears and other species. Idustrial waste and consiquent pollution will inflict deeper chasms in the otherwise serene ecosystem.

Finally they have agreed to list polar bears as threatened, thank God! Let’s some meaningful and sincere strategies will follow.

By: LiberalVoter

LiberalVoter — Sun, 21 Sep 2008 22:29:40 +0000

Nfilheim, where did you come up with the $468,784 to get the official information? And geeze, newsbusters. Now there is one great resource – for toilet paper. I guess your head is so far up your arse you missed even Alaska state biologists supported the listing. But hell, don’t let the facts get in your way. Typical republican troll. Now go have your mommy change your diaper. It’s as full of shit as you are.

By: Nfilheim

Nfilheim — Sun, 21 Sep 2008 21:47:43 +0000

Woah.
The polar bear population fell in the Southern Beaufort Sea area by 17% due to ice loss. What about the polar bears in other population regions? http://maps.grida.no/go/graphic/distribution_of_polar_bear_populations_in_the_arctic

Looks like… rising. http://newsbusters.org/node/12694

But, hey, if one or two particular regions support your argument, by all means focus exclusively on those areas.
I like the quoted Inuit who says there are more polar bears wandering around Inuit villages, which he says is anecdotal evidence of population increases.
Poor guy, doesn’t seem to know a better explanation is global warming killing off polar bear food supplies so they have to wander through town and eat children. Or less ice, so that Inuit villages take up more land proportionally, and increases polar bear visits. More polar bears is too simple a reason!

By: stateofthedivision

stateofthedivision — Sun, 21 Sep 2008 19:54:10 +0000

Valez Palin called the Exxon oil spill in Prince William Sound “11,000 gallons of fuel” on CSPAN’s Washington Journal. In reality it was 10.8 million gallons of crude oil which covered 11,000 square miles of ocean.

CSPAN interviewed her as the Supreme Court neared its decision on Exxon’s appeal. One might expect an “energy expert” to know the facts, especially when they’re an elected official representing Alaskans.