Jim Yanik . wrote:
wrote:

What we should be doing is exploring for more oil in any reasonable
place. And that includes ANWR, which should have been done a long time
ago, if it were not for the environmental whackos.

It's whacko to expect ANWR would solve our oil problems.

The part of ANWR they want to drill in is a desolate miserable place,not
any "pristine wilderness".

False. It is hardly miserable, it is not desolate (it is in
fact teaming with life), and it is as close to "pristine
wilderness" as can be found anywhere in North America.

I've been there, I've seen it and touched it. You are lying.

And where they already have drilled,the wildlife is doing fine.

Well ain't that odd... we've got 30 years of biology studies
done by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game and the US Fish
and Wildlife Service, which say that is not true.

What makes *you* say the biologists are wrong?

BTW, of the dozens of credible biologists who have done field
work on the North Slope (all paid with oil money and all
studying ways to produce more oil), there are virtually *none*
that say we can develop oil in ANWR without serious
environmental impact that should be avoided.

I say "virtually", because there is exactly 1 such biologist,
though he has been thoroughly discredited. Matthew Cronin
insists that all of the other dozens of biologists are wrong and
mis-interpreting the data. *He* is a whacko, and if you spout
the same nonsense he does, so are you.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)