Well, they certainly are now. :tango_face_wink:
Hey, Slip, I don't think Rush Limbaugh went to MFHS.
I do know that this 'polar bear thing' is a real deal. For years lots of environmentalists used the polar bear as a "living barometer." If the population of polar bears was rising, it meant that the overall condition of Planet Earth was winning. If the polar bear were dying or being shot faster than they could replicate themselves, the environment was in trouble.
I'll admit, I like some of this thinking for a simple reason. There is an imaginary line between the successful polar bear habitats and the fringe of where Canadians live. If we are doing the right things, the polar bear population grows. And the idea is that if an endangered species can grow in section of the earth where you really have to scratch for food to live--and you succeed--ergo, it means there has been no real spike in pollution and abuse.
I believe the growth in polar bears went from 5K to 40k inside of 20 years. If correct, I also believe that their environment is healthy.
You don't leave a successful knife fight and say to crowd, "Well, close enough for government work..."
I'm waiting to see how long before the Oroville dam in CA (150 miles north of San Fran) lets go. Since the emergency in 2017, repairs have been made, but are those repairs enough to maintain the dam.
California is just one disaster after another. Why would anybody want to continue living there? Why do they continue electing these left wing nut jobs?
I vote we move the UN headquarters to LA and then kick Cali out of the union. Then Nancy can be president of Loonyville.