OK, so RTA thinks that calling him a “cheap-shot artist” was Pit-worthy, as opposed to GD worthy. Maybe he’s right. But I thought that it was pretty restrained, since the real fact is that he is a liar.
He started with a cheap shot, sure enough. Specifically, he said in this thread that “That there is even more caribou breeding in the ANWR than a clearly discredited report would have us believe - shouldn’t this be yet another nail in the coffin of this outrageous drilling proposal?” (emphasis added). I responded that no, increased caribou population estimates in the area were not sufficient to oppose drilling the ANWR, but rather that one would have to show harm to the caribou to make such an argument.
Here is his response in its entirety:
RTA, by failing to back your statement and by mischaracterizing the impact of drilling on caribou populations, you have entered the realm of the lie.
It’s the lie of the uninformed, to be sure. I personally don’t know which is worse, a lie from intentional ignorance or a lie from knowledge designed to spread ignorance. But you are guilty of the first of these. I have complete confidence that you are too ignorant yourself to be guilty of the second.
A quick review of your prior posts indicates that you are wholly immune to facts, but to help eradicate the ignorance of others who may happen upon this thread, here are some interesting things to know about Alaskan caribou and drilling.
The Central Arctic herd (the one most associated with the Trans-Alaska Pipeline) has increased three to six-fold since the pipeline went up in the ‘70s (depending on your start and end dates – the six-fold figure starts from a very low base when the herd was in cyclical decline and stops at a cyclical peak in ’95). Because of the pipeline? Actually, no. Of course not. But to claim the pipeline hurt the caribou is a lie, pure and simple.
The Western Arctic herd (associated with North Shore drilling) has increased about five-fold since drilling operations started there. Because of the drilling? Actually, no. Of course not. But again, to claim that the drilling hurt the caribou is a lie, pure and simple.
1002 drilling, if it occurs, will mostly affect the Porcupine herd. Now, that’s a larger herd, and it post-calves on a narrower strip of shoreline. So will drilling hurt the herd? I don’t know. But, and this is important, neither do you, RTA. And you are lying when you claim or imply otherwise.
Personally, I’m more concerned with the rarer and less adaptable polar bear, which dens in the ANWR. Do you know the specific concern that I (and other people who actually think it’s important to know the facts) have, or was I correct when I said you just bleat back whatever they teach you in knee-jerk school? (Quick, RTA, how many other major caribou herd groups are there in the area? What are their names? Why do caribou tend to post-calf near the shores? When, seasonally, do they post-calf? Would there be oil production during that season? Why or why not?)
To repeat what I said in the original thread, for my own account I still think the jury is out on the risk/reward here – and certainly there are more pressing priorities, such as opening up the Florida Gulf Coast to deepwater operations (What can I say? I like tundra more than tourists – go figure!). But lies about the caribou are simply that – lies.
So, RTA, not only are you a such a low and loathsome waste of otherwise perfectly good DNA that you happily and proudly make fun of Alzheimer’s disease to reinforce your hatred, but you are a liar to boot.
I don’t know how you live with yourself – I’m just grateful that I don’t have to.
