49 Comments

• Digg
• Bury

Jesus, you saved our planet but f**ked our government. Thanks a lot!

• Reply

• Digg
• Bury

I must say, your use of the term "oil regime" makes me somewhat suspect of your objectivity, and I've taken note that you haven't addressed the issues I raised with the report in terms of natural population cycles; i.e. the likelihood of populations increasing and declining due to natural cycles.Here's a study that appears to be even more in depth than the one you provided, entitled "Caribou Distribution During the Post-Calving Period in Relation to Infrastructure in the Prudhoe Bay Oil Field, Alaska." Among other things, the study states, "In summary, the log-linear analysis, without combining data into intervals, indicate that caribou distribution in the PBOF is unrelated to the covariates (distance from infrastructure, distance from the coast, Julian data, year). The log-linear analyses of the caribou in distance intervals suggest that caribou prefer habitats near infrastructure to those farther away. Our analyses suggest that caribou, rather than avoiding oil field infrastructure, occur independent of, or close to, infrastructure. Our analyses also indicate that caribou distribution was unrelated to distance from the coast, interactions between the distance from the coast and the distance from infrastructure, Julian date, and year of the survey." And here's the link to the PDF: <a class="user" href="http://pubs.aina.ucalgary.ca/arctic/Arctic51-2-85.pdf&quot;&gt;http://pubs.aina.ucalgary.ca/arctic/Arctic51-2-85. ...</a>In addition,the following article from the Property & Environmental Research Center, which states, "The weight of evidence suggests that the oil facilities built in the late 1960s have not visibly harmed the caribou that migrate through the Prudhoe Bay area. While there are speculative reasons to be concerned about the larger herd of caribou migrating in ANWR, the evidence of likely harm is weak." Here's the link: <a class="user" href="http://www.perc.org/articles/article309.php&quot;&gt;http://www.perc.org/articles/article309.php&lt;/a&gt;And Matthew Cronin, PHD wrote the original article I quoted, which was published in Environment & Climate News. Here's the link to that: <a class="user" href="http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=1123&quot;&gt;http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=1123&lt;/a&gt;

• Reply

• Digg
• Bury

@ MorganMghee: “Let's begin with your first link, which is not a study but in fact a paper based on lots of other papers. Most of the papers having been written from '92-'95…” Did you not read the very report you cited to me? If you had, you’d know that in the ‘Acknowledgements’ section it states that “Much of the research reported in this document was designed and conducted between 1988-1994 while Thomas R. McCabe served as the Senior Scientist and Coordinator.” Pot meet Kettle.You charge, “The Caribou Question article directly relates to the study I've cited, and each claim denounced by the writer has been more recently studied and updated in my citation…” Sorry, but you’re wrong again. Not only does your source not deal with most of the issues raised, but click on the ‘References” link on the report you cite and you’ll see a list of references dating back to 1973 for God’s sake. The most recent I could find is 2001- the same year as the article you attack as antiquated. Pot meet Kettle- again.As for your assertion that my source is “not a study but in fact a paper based on lots of other papers,” are you also unaware that the “Arctic Refuge Coastal Plain Terrestrial Wildlife Research Summaries” paper is as well? In their own words much of the report sections “summarize previously published peer-reviewed scientific papers and were reviewed by a single independent scientist.” That’s right on the index of the first page. Pot, I think you already know Kettle.Your attack on Matthew Cronin is particularly ugly, since Mr. Cronin is a PhD, an affiliate professor at the University of Alaska, and has published extensively in the wildlife-related research journals on the relationship between the Prudhoe Bay oil field and its caribou herds. He is respected as thorough and fair by all but a few radical environmentalists. As for the Heartland Institute, 84% of their funding comes from individuals and foundations. No corporation gives more than 5% annually. You write, “Oil is not the only sector facing the problem, human generated global climate change has it's share of denouncers and it comes down to the same issue basically, 'who ya gonna trust?'” I dunno… the funding sources for the study you cite are government sources primarily. Funny how the left is so distrustful of government these days- unless, of course it fits with their agenda. I tend to trust my neighbors before government, and yeah, “Big Oil” are my neighbors. The bulk of ‘Big Oil’ benefactors are hardworking men and women across America who boost their retirement portfolios through oil and natural gas stock. In fact, only 1.5 percent of company shares are owned by industry executives. The rest are owned by mutual fund investors, or those planning for retirement with pension and IRA funds. A study by economists Robert J. Shapiro and Nam D. Pham found: “Almost 43 percent of oil and natural gas company shares are owned by mutual funds and asset management companies that have mutual funds. Mutual funds manage accounts for 55 million U.S. households with a median income of $68,700,” so realize that when you want to stick it to “Big Oil,” you’re primarily hurting the little guy (not to mention people who drive cars, i.e. just about everyone in the US.) As for your assertion that climate change is “human generated” that is open for a debate on another day, but it’s not the issue we’ve been discussing. Terms like “Big Oil,” and “Oil Regime” do reveal a lot about your leanings, though.As for your rant on the “definition of regime per Encarta,” it’s a little bit semantics and a little bit ridiculous, especially in light of the previous paragraph that proves that “Big Oil,” is, in fact, most Americans. Let me address the last part though… You write, “I'm objective, I've objectively researched and come to the same conclusion most Americans have according to the sector political campaign contributions records and any poll of your choosing, that Big Oil Has Control of Our Government.” What the hell are you talking about here? Is it the presidential election? If it is, despite the fact that Senator Obama has painted Senator McCain as a “Big Oil” guy, the non-partisan Center for Responsive Politics says that “about $1.3 million (of McCain’s contributions) has come from political action committees and individuals tied to the oil and gas industries. The ad does not point out that Obama has collected at least $1.3 million from the energy/natural resources sector. About $400,000 came from oil or gas company workers.” Poll of my choosing? OK, how about Zogby’s poll on June 20, 2008 which found 74% Support Off-Shore Oil Drilling in U.S. Coastal Waters, and 59% of likely voters favor drilling in ANWR. Time to face reality.As for you, greenfyre, if you can form a cohesive argument and you’d like to discuss issues, I’m all for that, but I’m not going to respond to a random list of very questionable websites. Sorry.

• Reply

• Digg
• Bury

What a FREAK!!I am so, so ashamed of this person. I did NOT vote for her and I'm begging everyone to please, please help out the man running against her. Do whatever you can. Bachmann is a danger to everyone. Here is his website: <a class="user" href="http://www.tinklenberg08.com/&quot;&gt;http://www.tinklenberg08.com/&lt;/a&gt;He&#039;s got to win!

• Reply

• Digg
• Bury

She is seriously delusional. She told a reporter that God also told her to the run for Congress, after fasting for 3 days and during resulting hallucinations, she said she heard the voice of god. (It sounded like a stomach rumbling with hunger). Help us defeat her: <a class="user" href="http://www.tinklenberg08.com/&quot;&gt;http://www.tinklenberg08.com/&lt;/a&gt;

• Reply