On Jul 9, 4:56*pm, (Vladimir Tschenko Badenov) wrote:

Vladimir think you are enviro-nutcake tree hugger, care more about
animal and tree than human. *Original poster say that area has lots of

met a lot of humans. met a lot of trees. by and large, prefer most of
the trees to most of the humans. case in point.

On Jul 9, 9:34*am, (Way Back Jack) wrote:
RACCOONS:

no need to post all this, your sexual habits are already known to us,
more than we would like.

Global Warming Consensus Gone Up in Flames
By Bob Ellis on June 26th, 2009

Kimberley Strassel at the Wall Street Journal has a great piece on the
global warming debate and how Al Gore’s much-professed “consensus” has
crumbled to ruin.

Her article lists a number of people who are no longer following Al
Gore’s herd on the issue of anthropogenic global warming, and also
provides some insight into how this fragile “consensus” has been
devastated by science over conjecture and hysteria:

In April, the Polish Academy of Sciences published a document
challenging man-made global warming. In the Czech Republic, where
President Vaclav Klaus remains a leading skeptic, today only 11% of
the population believes humans play a role. In France, President
Nicolas Sarkozy wants to tap Claude Allegre to lead the country’s new
ministry of industry and innovation. Twenty years ago Mr. Allegre was
among the first to trill about man-made global warming, but the
geochemist has since recanted. New Zealand last year elected a new
government, which immediately suspended the country’s weeks-old
cap-and-trade program.


The number of skeptics, far from shrinking, is swelling. Oklahoma Sen.
Jim Inhofe now counts more than 700 scientists who disagree with the
U.N. — 13 times the number who authored the U.N.’s 2007 climate
summary for policymakers. Joanne Simpson, the world’s first woman to
receive a Ph.D. in meteorology, expressed relief upon her retirement
last year that she was finally free to speak “frankly” of her
nonbelief. Dr. Kiminori Itoh, a Japanese environmental physical
chemist who contributed to a U.N. climate report, dubs man-made
warming “the worst scientific scandal in history.” Norway’s Ivar
Giaever, Nobel Prize winner for physics, decries it as the “new
religion.” A group of 54 noted physicists, led by Princeton’s Will
Happer, is demanding the American Physical Society revise its position
that the science is settled. (Both Nature and Science magazines have
refused to run the physicists’ open letter.)

Proof of concensus or lack thereof is not an indication of the
reliability of a given position; after all, the majority has been
proved wrong countless times throughout history, and someone has to be
the first person to be right about a new conclusion.

But when you have a situation where the more information we have on a
given contention, the fewer people buy into that contention, well,
that speaks powerfully that the contention was a bad one from the
start.

I have long said that the contention that human activity–over more
obvious and more powerful natural forces–is having a significant
impact on global temperatures just doesn’t pass the smell test.

To put it another way, it seems as if Occam’s Razor has been forgotten
in the modern world’s infatuation with wild and exciting ideas. In
case you’re not familiar with Occam’s Razor, it is a principle that
basically says assumptions should be avoided where ever possible. Or
to put it in plain language, of all reasonable explanations for a
phenomenon, the simplest is usually the correct one.

Sadly, objective examinations of information and assumptive restraint
have been abandoned in today’s world in favor of politically correct
agendas which are fueled by protection of reputation and ego. In
other words, instead of behaving like objective investigators, our
modern scientific and legislative community behaves like teenagers
caught up in herd-instinct pursuit of “the right clothes” or “the
right CD” or “the right look.”

I can only hope a sufficient number of the American people wake up to
the reality that the theory of AGW stinks…and that they get ticked off
enough to wake up a sufficient number of representatives in congress
to stop this mad rush to destruction before it’s too late.
________

http://lmliberty.wordpress.com/2009/...venient-truth/


..July 8, 2009 • 3:00 PM
..Global temperatures DROPPED .74°F since Al “Hot Air” Gore released
‘An Inconvenient Truth’
Climate Kooks suffer from mental illness. That’s undeniable. I think
it’s a form of schizophrenia. In the good old days, the climate kooks
would be institutionalized and most likely lobotomized. Oh how I long
for the good old days.

Real science has concluded, based on fact and data (NOT theory and
models) that the earth has cooled almost three-quarters of a degree
Fahrenheit since that dope Al Gore produced his fictional movie, “An
Inconvienient Truth.” For those of you in Europe or Canada, that’s .4
celsius.

Here’s the best part. We have a kook president that wants to legislate
away “global warming,” and it’s not even happening! Only in America! I
told you, it’s about money and power.

Last month, June 2009 showed us yet another global temperature drop.
Yet, we still have kooks running around legislating the climate,
idiots screaming “do something.” Do something about what?

According to the latest data … “For the record, this month’s Al Gore /
‘An Inconvenient Truth’ Index indicates that global temperatures have
plunged approximately .74°F (.39°C) since ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ was
released.” (see satellite temperature chart here with key dates noted,
courtesy of www.Algorelied.com – The global satellite temperature data
comes from the University of Alabama in Huntsville. Also see: 8 Year
Downtrend Continues in Global Temps)

________















On Fri, 10 Jul 2009 13:37:33 -0700, Billy
wrote:

In article ,
(Vladimir Tschenko Badenov) wrote:

On Fri, 10 Jul 2009 11:19:12 -0700, Billy
wrote:

In article ,
(Vladimir Tschenko Badenov) wrote:

On Thu, 09 Jul 2009 18:36:05 -0400, Karl Kleinpaste
wrote:

Billy writes:
When are YOU going to get alarmed, when, except for the zoos, the only
animals left are pets and food animals? Our biosphere is dying, and we
can only save it, one raccoon at a time.

Geez...you haven't looked out my back door lately.

I live on 15 acres of nowhereness, northwest of Pittsburgh near the Ohio
line. On any given day, 20 or 30 deer wander by, mostly at the treeline
that abuts the open field of the next parcel, ~150ft behind the house.
Local turkey flocks are positively routine, and I don't mean 5, I mean
30 or 40 at a time. Raccoons aren't too common, but I see them now and
again. This year, there is a family of foxes living in the woods
somewhere just southwest of the house who step now and again into the
yard, generally at dawn or dusk.

The deer congregate most days in what we've long called "town hall",
which is a low hollow inside the treeline on the far side of the power
tower right-of-way, ~200yds due east of the house...except during
hunting season, when they disappear for parts unknown. They figured out
long ago when they need to make themselves scarce.

Then there's the possums that often befriend our cats for playful romps
after dark. Add in the moles and voles that the cats hunt during the
day. I can't say I'm sorry to see our feline Mighty Hunters having
success in that department, as long as they don't bring gifts (or
[worse] half-gifts) into the house. Coyotes avoid the house, but they
are known to live in the woods down near the creek, still on my property
but well toward the northeast corner of it.

No bears these days, at least none that we know of. But small stuff
like toads and whatnot are everywhere.

I could feed my household using nothing but a crossbow, without ever
having to step outside the yard immediately surrounding the house. All
I have to do is wait for the game to show up.

It's a funny view of "the dying biosphere" that some folks have.

Billy has bought into the hoax.
And your cite that it is a hoax is . . .?

Billy has read the numbers and understand them.

Billy believes that global warming is man-made; man can reverse it;
and if man doesn't reverse it, will be necessarily catastrophic.
Speaking for myself, I don't like the out look.
You didn't look at
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?cha...ID=00037A5 D-
A938-150E-A93883414B7F0000
"Impact from the Deep", did you?


Bill has drunk the Goron Kool-Aid.
I don't talk Neo-Nutcake. What are you trying to say?

Billy doesn't know that there is no longer a consensus.
Citation please.

Billy doesn't know that the global temp has dropped .74 since "An
Inconvenient Truth."
Cite please.

Happy to edify.
Let me know when you do that.
In the meantime the Union of Concerned Scientists
(you remember them, they were right about the ozone hole,
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming...ience/faq-abou
t-ozone-depletion-and.html
and "acid rain".
http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/coalvswind/c02c.html )
really don't like "Global Warming" that much either.
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming...l_warming_101/
--

- Billy

There are three kinds of men: The ones that learn by reading. The few who
learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence and
find out for themselves.
Will Rogers

http://countercurrents.org/roberts020709.htm
http://www.tomdispatch.com/p/zinn

In article ,
(Vladimir Tschenko Badenov) wrote:


And don't let's pretend the Viet Nam war was a success! In fact it's
doubtful if the USA has won any of the wars it has itself started?

If it smells like a Euro twit and sounds like a Euro twit ....
But ew


Obama comes across as a realist; often telling it like it really is.
With doses of realism; not airy-fairy images of the way it used to be!
Maybe some don't like the truth?

The things you don’t read about Barack Obama

Sat. May 2 - 5:46 AM

(...)

So here is a small selection of news on the most powerful man on Earth
which has been deemed unfit to print:

•Obama’s first two major bills alone, the "stimulus" and "omnibus,"
cost nearly twice as much as was spent on Iraq over six years – $1.2
trillion vs. $650 billion.

•Obama abandoned his campaign promise of "a net spending cut," his
first annual deficit – not counting bailouts – being three times the
worst deficit under President George W. Bush.

•Obama’s objective in his first G20 summit – commitments to spend our
way to prosperity with massive stimulus boondoggles across the G20 –
was rejected out of hand.

•Obama’s objective in his first NATO summit – commitments to combat
troops for Afghanistan from "our European allies," which Obama and his
party imagined were ready and willing to fight if only someone
"enlightened" like him were running things – was predictably refused,
with some more European non-combat contingents offered as a token.

•Obama’s Defence Department announced cuts of $1.4 billion to missile
defence, the day after North Korea test-fired its long-range,
multi-stage ballistic missile.

•Obama’s economics were criticized by Warren Buffet, whose endorsement
had been candidate Obama’s highest economic credential.

•Obama reversed the free trade Bush policy that had allowed about 100
Mexican tractor-trailers into the United States, which the Mexican
government immediately used as an excuse to levy tariffs on 90
American goods amounting to $2.4 billion in U.S. exports.

•Obama’s "tax cuts for 95 per cent" turned out to mean $13 a week from
June to December, to be clawed back to $8 a week in January – as
compared with President Bush’s 2008 tax rebates of $600 to $1,200 plus
$300 per child, which were notably scoffed at during the election
campaign by Michelle Obama.

•Obama’s campaign promise of a $3,000-per-employee tax credit for
businesses that hired new workers – repeated ad nauseam for weeks
before the election – was discreetly retired even before inauguration
day.

•Obama abandoned his campaign promise that "lobbyists won’t work in my
White House," waiving his no-lobbyist executive order or conveniently
re-defining his appointees’ past lobbying work to allow 30 lobbyists
into his administration.

•Obama abandoned his campaign promise to reform earmarks, signing the
omnibus bill which contained 8,816 of them.

•Obama took more money from AIG than any other politician in 2008 –
over $100,000 – and signed into law the provision guaranteeing the AIG
bonuses which later had him in front of the cameras "shaking with
outrage" and siccing the pitchfork crowd on law-abiding citizens who
had fulfilled their end of a contract and had their payment upheld by
Obama’s own legislation.

Why should these points, and many more like them, have to be made by
some obscure contributor to The Chronicle Herald’s opinion pages?

Fox News Channel is the butt of jokes and the target of attacks like
no other media outlet in the English-speaking world, not least by
people who fancy themselves the guardians of a free press. But Fox
News is today the lone television news service in the English-speaking
world capable of serious skepticism and scrutiny of the sitting
president and the Congress of the United States.

Fox News is also the second most-watched channel in all American cable
television. It long ago became by far the most-watched cable news
channel; more Americans watched Fox News than CNN and MSNBC combined
in every time slot from 6 a.m. to midnight in April. Now, while The
New York Times is $1.3 billion in debt, Fox has expanded its
operations with a business channel and a juggernaut Internet presence.


There’s a lesson there, though Fox News will be just as well pleased
if the impeccably "mainstream" news business remains clueless about
it.

The people need a Fourth Estate, not yet another adulator of Barack
Obama, yet another smearer of Sarah Palin, yet another patrician
editor to keep out anything disagreeable to progressive sensibilities,
yet another laptop-and-latte journalism-schooler to spit on everything
pre-dating 1968. And they wonder why the news business has come on
hard times.

It also appears the USA has not, for a long time, realised that it is
not and will not always be, 'The only game in town (the world)'.

Problem with the USA is that she gives a **** what everyone else
thinks.



What the US still does have is some (supposed) fundamental values
about hard work, family values, home ownership and place in community
etc. Although social and financial ethics have taken quite a beating.
But the USA or it's individual states does not back this up with good
social programmes and public care. And forget any of the forced
extremist Christianity cults; they are just as biased and intolerant
(and possibly dangerous when leaders think they are going on a
crusade!) as any other extreme religious format. Keep religion out of
government for God's sake (pun intended!).

Yep, a socialist Euro twit.

Told ya.

How many US millions is it that don't have medical/drug care? Much
smaller (sometimes with less than the tenth of the US population) and
therefore smaller resourced countries have much better systems (some
would call them 'socialist' as though that were a bad word!) and do
much better job of providing incentives for a healthier and more
productive population.

Hey, we've heard the horror tales about Brit health care.

No t'anks.

Also there is still something of a dog-eat-dog attitude although most
individual Americans are sensible helpful people! Maybe a sort of "If
I have the biggest/fastest gun I have every right to shoot the last
deer/elk/moose/bear etc.". How the West was won; i.e. stolen from the
Aboriginals and from Mexico!

Yeah, **** happens, dunnit.

If not for civilization, the abos would still be communicating with
smoke, pooping in holes, and dying at the ripe old age of 33.

Maybe some serious navel gazing is in order? That marvellous
expression from some US president, "Walk softly but carry a big stick"
comes to mind.

Good luck to all from somewhere else in the world!

**** off, comrade, we don't want ya wishes.

--
Searching is half the fun: life is much more manageable when thought
of as a scavenger hunt as opposed to a surprise party.
Jimmy Buffett

On Jul 9, 5:36�pm, Karl Kleinpaste wrote:
Billy writes:
When are YOU going to get alarmed, when, except for the zoos, the only
animals left are pets and food animals? Our biosphere is dying, and we
can only save it, one raccoon at a time.

Geez...you haven't looked out my back door lately.

I live on 15 acres of nowhereness, northwest of Pittsburgh near the Ohio
line. �On any given day, 20 or 30 deer wander by, mostly at the treeline
that abuts the open field of the next parcel, ~150ft behind the house.
Local turkey flocks are positively routine, and I don't mean 5, I mean
30 or 40 at a time. �Raccoons aren't too common, but I see them now and
again. �This year, there is a family of foxes living in the woods
somewhere just southwest of the house who step now and again into the
yard, generally at dawn or dusk.

The deer congregate most days in what we've long called "town hall",
which is a low hollow inside the treeline on the far side of the power
tower right-of-way, ~200yds due east of the house...except during
hunting season, when they disappear for parts unknown. �They figured out
long ago when they need to make themselves scarce.

Then there's the possums that often befriend our cats for playful romps
after dark. �Add in the moles and voles that the cats hunt during the
day. �I can't say I'm sorry to see our feline Mighty Hunters having
success in that department, as long as they don't bring gifts (or
[worse] half-gifts) into the house. �Coyotes avoid the house, but they
are known to live in the woods down near the creek, still on my property
but well toward the northeast corner of it.

No bears these days, at least none that we know of. �But small stuff
like toads and whatnot are everywhere.

I could feed my household using nothing but a crossbow, without ever
having to step outside the yard immediately surrounding the house. �All
I have to do is wait for the game to show up.

It's a funny view of "the dying biosphere" that some folks have.

I think sometimes people who want to preserve life "one raccoon at a
time" are following the same reasoning as the old joke about the guy
who lost his wallet in the pariking lot, but was looking inside the
restaurant "because that's where the light is". They don't think
about whether it actually makes sense, and often can't see beyond
their own perceived sphere of influence. It makes them feel good to
be accomplishing something, so whether they are helping with a real
problem is not relevant. It only becomes relevant when someone, by
word or deed, belittles what they feel they are accomplishing - then
they must go on the attack. This is, of course, much easier than
applying critical thought to the situation, and perhaps re-evaluating
their actions.

On Jul 10, 12:39�am, "FarmI" [email protected] be given wrote:
"Karl Kleinpaste" wrote in message
Billy writes:
When are YOU going to get alarmed, when, except for the zoos, the only
animals left are pets and food animals? Our biosphere is dying, and we
can only save it, one raccoon at a time.

Geez...you haven't looked out my back door lately.

I live on 15 acres of nowhereness, northwest of Pittsburgh near the
Ohio line.
On any given day, 20 or 30 deer wander by, mostly at the treeline
that abuts the open field of the next parcel, ~150ft behind the house.
Local turkey flocks are positively routine, and I don't mean 5, I mean
30 or 40 at a time. �Raccoons aren't too common, but I see them now and
again. �This year, there is a family of foxes living in the woods
somewhere just southwest of the house who step now and again into the
yard, generally at dawn or dusk.

The deer congregate most days in what we've long called "town hall",
which is a low hollow inside the treeline on the far side of the power
tower right-of-way, ~200yds due east of the house...except during
hunting season, when they disappear for parts unknown. �They figured out
long ago when they need to make themselves scarce.

Then there's the possums that often befriend our cats for playful romps
after dark. �Add in the moles and voles that the cats hunt during the
day. �I can't say I'm sorry to see our feline Mighty Hunters having
success in that department, as long as they don't bring gifts (or
[worse] half-gifts) into the house. �Coyotes avoid the house, but they
are known to live in the woods down near the creek, still on my property
but well toward the northeast corner of it.

No bears these days, at least none that we know of. �But small stuff
like toads and whatnot are everywhere.

I could feed my household using nothing but a crossbow, without ever
having to step outside the yard immediately surrounding the house. �All
I have to do is wait for the game to show up.

Where you live is your choice. �You made the decision whether you bought it
yourself or whether you inherited it and decided to stay there rather than
sell.

The wildlife do not have the luxury of 'deciding' where to live. �They were
born there.

It's a funny view of "the dying biosphere" that some folks have.

Indeed. �A biosphere can apply just to a tiddling place such as where you
live or it can apply to the whole planet.

You seem to think that just because you see a lot of biodiversity that it
will always be there. �It won't and you would know that if you took an
interest in either history or environmental issues.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Actually, "biosphere" refers to the earth and all living and organic
matter. But it isn't dying. It is shifting, perhaps, as it always
has.

This is not an excuse, of course, to crap in our own nest, but panicky
rhetoric (like declining polar bear population, which applied to a
single population of polar bears, while worldwide numbers showed a
slight increase) serves only to increase cynicism.

On Jul 10, 12:49�pm, Billy wrote:
In article ,
�Karl Kleinpaste wrote:





Billy writes:
When are YOU going to get alarmed, when, except for the zoos, the only
animals left are pets and food animals? Our biosphere is dying, and we
can only save it, one raccoon at a time.

Geez...you haven't looked out my back door lately.

I live on 15 acres of nowhereness, northwest of Pittsburgh near the Ohio
line. �On any given day, 20 or 30 deer wander by, mostly at the treeline
that abuts the open field of the next parcel, ~150ft behind the house.
Local turkey flocks are positively routine, and I don't mean 5, I mean
30 or 40 at a time. �Raccoons aren't too common, but I see them now and
again. �This year, there is a family of foxes living in the woods
somewhere just southwest of the house who step now and again into the
yard, generally at dawn or dusk.

The deer congregate most days in what we've long called "town hall",
which is a low hollow inside the treeline on the far side of the power
tower right-of-way, ~200yds due east of the house...except during
hunting season, when they disappear for parts unknown. �They figured out
long ago when they need to make themselves scarce.

Then there's the possums that often befriend our cats for playful romps
after dark. �Add in the moles and voles that the cats hunt during the
day. �I can't say I'm sorry to see our feline Mighty Hunters having
success in that department, as long as they don't bring gifts (or
[worse] half-gifts) into the house. �Coyotes avoid the house, but they
are known to live in the woods down near the creek, still on my property
but well toward the northeast corner of it.

No bears these days, at least none that we know of. �But small stuff
like toads and whatnot are everywhere.

I could feed my household using nothing but a crossbow, without ever
having to step outside the yard immediately surrounding the house. �All
I have to do is wait for the game to show up.

It's a funny view of "the dying biosphere" that some folks have.

You are a lucky man Karl, and I hope your luck holds. 50 years ago,
there were 3 billion people on this planet. Now there are 6 billion. In
40 years there will be 9 billion. I've heard 9 billion to be the max,
that this ol' planet can support, even with a greatly reduced life style.

If our old friends famine, war, and pestilence don't get our offspring,
then there is

"Impact from the Deep"

Strangling heat and gases emanating from the earth and sea, not
asteroids, most likely caused several ancient mass extinctions. Could
the same killer-greenhouse conditions build once again?http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?cha...rticleID=00037...
A938-150E-A93883414B7F0000

Enjoy it while you got it.
--

- Billy

There are three kinds of men: The ones that learn by reading. The few who
learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence and
find out for themselves.
Will Rogers

http://countercurrents.org/roberts02...ch.com/p/zinn- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Thomas Mathus put the number considerably lower, Lower, in fact, than
we reached before 1950. He used mwhat passed for unassailable
statistics at the time. Obviously he was wrong.

"Karl Kleinpaste" wrote in message
FarmI writes:
The wildlife do not have the luxury of 'deciding' where to live. They
were born there.

There is no "who was here first" argument to be made.

I never made any such statement so your comment is irrelevant.

Animal populations migrate -- they do indeed decide where to live.

Some wild animal populations do migrate - eg Caribou, Wildebeest and many
bird species.

Most wild animal populations live within a defined range and roam within
that range.

In terms of your comments about them making a 'decision' about where they
live, then non-migratory animals certainly do no such thing in the same way
that humans can and do. Wild animals follow food, shelter and in some
cases, seasonal conditions.

They cannot sell and relocate for the sake of convenience and nor do they
move to Florida for the winter in the same way that humans can.

You seem to think that just because you see a lot of biodiversity that
it will always be there. It won't and you would know that if you took
an interest in either history or environmental issues.

Oh, I take an /interest/ in them, all right. I just don't buy the lie
that everything is dying.

Read what I wrote and respond to that rather than invent something I didn't
write.

The fact that I make these observations about my "tiddling place" does
not restrict their validity to only these few small acres of my
"tiddling place." I make my observations so as to provide a context in
which to be able to make a reasonable claim that there is an
(over)abundance of wildlife all around me (e.g. the state game lands a
few miles away are chock full of critters), throughout the whole area of
western Pennsylvania outside the cities, not /just/ on my "tiddling
place," and that there is precious little actual risk to the whole.

If you had understood what I wrote about 'history" and the fact that it
(meaning wildlife around your tiddling place and even the whole of the US
and the world) will not always be there, you would not make this statement.

The earth is not made up of infinite resources and that applies to wildlife
as it does to every other single commodity.

There is no current risk of impending doom *at all* to Pennsylvania's
wildlife, least of all to deer.

I repeat, read what I wrote. I did not comment about "current" risk. I
wrote about future risk. And regardless of how much wildlife you or the
whole of the US currently has, it will not stay that way.

You (and Ann) have mere local effects.

Since Ann and I live on different continents and I made no statement
whatsoever about the wildlife in my area, you can make no meaningful
statement about whether I have local effects or not.

"Vladimir Tschenko Badenov" wrote in message
On Fri, 10 Jul 2009 13:20:57 -0700 (PDT), stan
wrote:


If it smells like a Euro twit and sounds like a Euro twit ....

?????What country do you think they come from?

Yep, a socialist Euro twit.

Told ya.

You did, but then you'd be wrong:
wrote:

How many US millions is it that don't have medical/drug care?

Hey, we've heard the horror tales about Brit health care.

No t'anks.

This just gets funnier all the time.

wrote in message news:53695f93-a3ac-4d29-
On Jul 10, 12:39?am, "FarmI" [email protected] be given wrote:
"Karl Kleinpaste" wrote in message
Billy writes:
When are YOU going to get alarmed, when, except for the zoos, the only
animals left are pets and food animals? Our biosphere is dying, and we
can only save it, one raccoon at a time.

Geez...you haven't looked out my back door lately.

I live on 15 acres of nowhereness, northwest of Pittsburgh near the
Ohio line.
On any given day, 20 or 30 deer wander by, mostly at the treeline
that abuts the open field of the next parcel, ~150ft behind the house.
Local turkey flocks are positively routine, and I don't mean 5, I mean
30 or 40 at a time. ?Raccoons aren't too common, but I see them now and
again. ?This year, there is a family of foxes living in the woods
somewhere just southwest of the house who step now and again into the
yard, generally at dawn or dusk.

The deer congregate most days in what we've long called "town hall",
which is a low hollow inside the treeline on the far side of the power
tower right-of-way, ~200yds due east of the house...except during
hunting season, when they disappear for parts unknown. ?They figured out
long ago when they need to make themselves scarce.

Then there's the possums that often befriend our cats for playful romps
after dark. ?Add in the moles and voles that the cats hunt during the
day. ?I can't say I'm sorry to see our feline Mighty Hunters having
success in that department, as long as they don't bring gifts (or
[worse] half-gifts) into the house. ?Coyotes avoid the house, but they
are known to live in the woods down near the creek, still on my property
but well toward the northeast corner of it.

No bears these days, at least none that we know of. ?But small stuff
like toads and whatnot are everywhere.

I could feed my household using nothing but a crossbow, without ever
having to step outside the yard immediately surrounding the house. ?All
I have to do is wait for the game to show up.

Where you live is your choice. ?You made the decision whether you bought
it
yourself or whether you inherited it and decided to stay there rather than
sell.

The wildlife do not have the luxury of 'deciding' where to live. ?They
were
born there.

It's a funny view of "the dying biosphere" that some folks have.

Indeed. ?A biosphere can apply just to a tiddling place such as where you
live or it can apply to the whole planet.

You seem to think that just because you see a lot of biodiversity that it
will always be there. ?It won't and you would know that if you took an
interest in either history or environmental issues.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Actually, "biosphere" refers to the earth and all living and organic
matter. But it isn't dying. It is shifting, perhaps, as it always
has.
______________________________________-
Of course it is dying! But then it is also shifting.

What you probably mean is that it is not dying in our lifetime.

This is not an excuse, of course, to crap in our own nest, but panicky
rhetoric (like declining polar bear population, which applied to a
single population of polar bears, while worldwide numbers showed a
slight increase) serves only to increase cynicism.
___________________________________________
Indeed. But I get similarly cynical when I see a referral to 'worldwide'
number of polar bears when they don't live worldwide. They only live in the
Arctic.

On Sat, 11 Jul 2009 18:24:48 +1000, FarmI wrote:

wrote in message news:53695f93-a3ac-4d29- On Jul 10,
12:39?am, "FarmI" [email protected] be given wrote:
"Karl Kleinpaste" wrote in message
Billy writes:
When are YOU going to get alarmed, when, except for the zoos, the
only animals left are pets and food animals? Our biosphere is dying,
and we can only save it, one raccoon at a time.

Geez...you haven't looked out my back door lately.

I live on 15 acres of nowhereness, northwest of Pittsburgh near the
Ohio line.
On any given day, 20 or 30 deer wander by, mostly at the treeline that
abuts the open field of the next parcel, ~150ft behind the house.
Local turkey flocks are positively routine, and I don't mean 5, I mean
30 or 40 at a time. ?Raccoons aren't too common, but I see them now
and again. ?This year, there is a family of foxes living in the woods
somewhere just southwest of the house who step now and again into the
yard, generally at dawn or dusk.

The deer congregate most days in what we've long called "town hall",
which is a low hollow inside the treeline on the far side of the power
tower right-of-way, ~200yds due east of the house...except during
hunting season, when they disappear for parts unknown. ?They figured
out long ago when they need to make themselves scarce.

Then there's the possums that often befriend our cats for playful
romps after dark. ?Add in the moles and voles that the cats hunt
during the day. ?I can't say I'm sorry to see our feline Mighty
Hunters having success in that department, as long as they don't bring
gifts (or [worse] half-gifts) into the house. ?Coyotes avoid the
house, but they are known to live in the woods down near the creek,
still on my property but well toward the northeast corner of it.

No bears these days, at least none that we know of. ?But small stuff
like toads and whatnot are everywhere.

I could feed my household using nothing but a crossbow, without ever
having to step outside the yard immediately surrounding the house.
?All I have to do is wait for the game to show up.

Where you live is your choice. ?You made the decision whether you bought
it
yourself or whether you inherited it and decided to stay there rather
than sell.

The wildlife do not have the luxury of 'deciding' where to live. ?They
were
born there.

It's a funny view of "the dying biosphere" that some folks have.

Indeed. ?A biosphere can apply just to a tiddling place such as where
you live or it can apply to the whole planet.

You seem to think that just because you see a lot of biodiversity that
it will always be there. ?It won't and you would know that if you took
an interest in either history or environmental issues.- Hide quoted text
-

- Show quoted text -

Actually, "biosphere" refers to the earth and all living and organic
matter. But it isn't dying. It is shifting, perhaps, as it always has.
______________________________________- Of course it is dying! But then
it is also shifting.

What you probably mean is that it is not dying in our lifetime.

This is not an excuse, of course, to crap in our own nest, but panicky
rhetoric (like declining polar bear population, which applied to a single
population of polar bears, while worldwide numbers showed a slight
increase) serves only to increase cynicism.
___________________________________________ Indeed. But I get similarly
cynical when I see a referral to 'worldwide' number of polar bears when
they don't live worldwide. They only live in the Arctic.

And, the claim that only one population is decreasing is apparently based
on old information. According to 15th PBSG meeting (this month):

"Reviewing the latest information available the PBSG concluded that 1 of
19 subpopulations is currently increasing, 3 are stable and 8 are
declining. For the remaining 7 subpopulations available data were
insufficient to provide an assessment of current trend."

http://pbsg.npolar.no/en/meetings/pr...openhagen.html

"Vladimir Tschenko Badenov" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 10 Jul 2009 11:19:12 -0700, Billy
wrote:

In article ,
(Vladimir Tschenko Badenov) wrote:

On Thu, 09 Jul 2009 18:36:05 -0400, Karl Kleinpaste
wrote:

Billy writes:
When are YOU going to get alarmed, when, except for the zoos, the
only
animals left are pets and food animals? Our biosphere is dying, and
we
can only save it, one raccoon at a time.

Geez...you haven't looked out my back door lately.

I live on 15 acres of nowhereness, northwest of Pittsburgh near the
Ohio
line. On any given day, 20 or 30 deer wander by, mostly at the
treeline
that abuts the open field of the next parcel, ~150ft behind the house.
Local turkey flocks are positively routine, and I don't mean 5, I mean
30 or 40 at a time. Raccoons aren't too common, but I see them now and
again. This year, there is a family of foxes living in the woods
somewhere just southwest of the house who step now and again into the
yard, generally at dawn or dusk.

The deer congregate most days in what we've long called "town hall",
which is a low hollow inside the treeline on the far side of the power
tower right-of-way, ~200yds due east of the house...except during
hunting season, when they disappear for parts unknown. They figured
out
long ago when they need to make themselves scarce.

Then there's the possums that often befriend our cats for playful romps
after dark. Add in the moles and voles that the cats hunt during the
day. I can't say I'm sorry to see our feline Mighty Hunters having
success in that department, as long as they don't bring gifts (or
[worse] half-gifts) into the house. Coyotes avoid the house, but they
are known to live in the woods down near the creek, still on my
property
but well toward the northeast corner of it.

No bears these days, at least none that we know of. But small stuff
like toads and whatnot are everywhere.

I could feed my household using nothing but a crossbow, without ever
having to step outside the yard immediately surrounding the house. All
I have to do is wait for the game to show up.

It's a funny view of "the dying biosphere" that some folks have.

Billy has bought into the hoax.

Billy has read the numbers and understand them.

Billy believes that global warming is man-made; man can reverse it;
and if man doesn't reverse it, will be necessarily catastrophic.

Bill has drunk the Goron Kool-Aid.

Billy doesn't know that there is no longer a consensus.

Billy doesn't know that the global temp has dropped .74 since "An
Inconvenient Truth."

Happy to edify.

All I know for sure is people are generally stuck where they live, they
can't really move around to where its more comfortable to live. So that
brings it down to a singularity of each and every individual, not a global
thing.

In the U.S. (not the globe), its been more cool up north, much warmer south
and west with less precipitation. Central Texas is about to surpass the
drought of the 1950's I don't know why, I just know that it is. And it
doesn't matter why as we can't do anything about it, climatic or otherwise
man-made in a reasonable amount of time. Either way, the time-line for such
is too substantial for one generation to see that change for the better.

So, therefore, I submit all the political mumbo-jumbo about all this is just
that. Either left or right. Just another political opportunity to take
jabs at each other when there's no reality basis to begin with.
--
Dave

Ann wrote:

And, the claim that only one population is decreasing is apparently
based on old information. According to 15th PBSG meeting (this
month):

"Reviewing the latest information available the PBSG concluded that 1
of 19 subpopulations is currently increasing, 3 are stable and 8 are
declining. For the remaining 7 subpopulations available data were
insufficient to provide an assessment of current trend."

http://pbsg.npolar.no/en/meetings/pr...openhagen.html

Here's the fix. Put these animals in zoos. Once a sufficient number of zoos
have breeding populations, we can take the animals habitat off the
endangered-whatever list. From then on, the animal is invulnerable to:

* Global warming,
* Global cooling,
* Pollution,
* Discarded plastic bags,
* Shopping malls and loss of habitat,
* Humans poking them with sticks,
* Predation from other animals,
* Anything.

This plan solves the " 'X' will become extinct by Friday!" business. Those
who insist that all creatures get three hots, a cot, suitable entertainment,
freedom of travel, and the right to bear arms, however, will probably not be
satisfied.

We can put THEM in zoos...

In article ,
(Way Back Jack) wrote:

RACCOONS: dig up the old lady's annual flower garden, **** all over

WOODCHUCKS: are even worse digging burrows near the east side property

WHITETAIL: deer can be dangerous, especially in autumn. One decided

WILLIE THE WILD TURKEY: adopted us one summer. He terrorized the

ASSORTED SMALL BIRDS: attack their reflections in windows and really

Still, some wildlife is enjoyable.

Whatever happened to the vicious squirrels that were after your
nuts?

Too bad Alfred Hitchcock is dead. I'm sure he would have loved to do a
movie about your travails.
--

- Billy

There are three kinds of men: The ones that learn by reading. The few who
learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence and
find out for themselves.
Will Rogers

http://countercurrents.org/roberts020709.htm
http://www.tomdispatch.com/p/zinn

Billy wrote:
In article ,
(Way Back Jack) wrote:

RACCOONS: dig up the old lady's annual flower garden,

I'll bet the fertilizes flowers with fish meal ) Never heard of
raccoons digging in flower beds.

On Sat, 11 Jul 2009 12:22:41 -0700, Billy
wrote:

In article ,
(Way Back Jack) wrote:

RACCOONS: dig up the old lady's annual flower garden, **** all over

WOODCHUCKS: are even worse digging burrows near the east side property

WHITETAIL: deer can be dangerous, especially in autumn. One decided

WILLIE THE WILD TURKEY: adopted us one summer. He terrorized the

ASSORTED SMALL BIRDS: attack their reflections in windows and really

Still, some wildlife is enjoyable.

Whatever happened to the vicious squirrels that were after your
nuts?

You call yorurmomma a squirrel?

Too bad Alfred Hitchcock is dead. I'm sure he would have loved to do a
movie about your travails.
--

- Billy

There are three kinds of men: The ones that learn by reading. The few who
learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence and
find out for themselves.
Will Rogers

http://countercurrents.org/roberts020709.htm
http://www.tomdispatch.com/p/zinn

There is plenty of room for wildlife, right next to the mashed potatoes.

In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:


have breeding populations, we can take the animals habitat off the
endangered-whatever list. From then on, the animal is invulnerable to:


But not budget restraints. Boston talking about closing zoo and
offing the animals.
http://www.boston.com/news/local/mas...9/07/12/news_o
f_zoos8217_financial_woes_stuns/

http://preview.tinyurl.com/nebcnu

--
Searching is half the fun: life is much more manageable when thought
of as a scavenger hunt as opposed to a surprise party.
Jimmy Buffett

Kurt Ullman wrote:

But not budget restraints. Boston talking about closing zoo and
offing the animals.
http://www.boston.com/news/local/mas...9/07/12/news_o
f_zoos8217_financial_woes_stuns/

http://preview.tinyurl.com/nebcnu

Yep, I saw that. Too bad the economy's in such bad shape - some enterprising
entrepreneur could take a flyer and offer "Giraffe Burgers" or similar.