Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Melting Arctic Ice Has Consequences 466

Posted by kdawson
from the darn-it-I-really-liked-polar-bears dept.
OriginalArlen writes to tell us about some compelling global warming coverage in the Washington Post. First there is an article about a study indicating that melting Arctic ice is threatening polar bears with extinction. The article quotes an environmentalist: "This study is the smoking gun. Skeptics, polluting industries and President Bush can't run away from this one." And the polar melting is opening new shipping lanes. The second article details a trip late in October through the Northwest Passage by a Canadian icebreaker. Never before in history could this trip have been accomplished so late in the year; ice would have choked off the passage. Estimates of when the passage might be navigable by commercial shipping range from 2020 to the end of the century. The indigeneous people are not looking forward to this development.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Melting Arctic Ice Has Consequences

Comments Filter:
  • Political Bullshit (Score:4, Insightful)

    by chill (34294) on Sunday November 05, 2006 @06:16PM (#16728631) Journal
    On both sides.

    This has been presented before, and debunked before. This study [ncpa.org] shows that while ice is thinning in some parts of the arctic, it is thickening in others and the temperature change isn't uniform.

    It also shows that the majority of polar bear populations are steady, with an equal number on the increase and decrease.

    That shipping lane has been there before, and guess what -- there were polar bears around back then. Amazingly enough, polar bears aren't the hot-house flowers these people are making them out to be.

    The climate is changing, that is for certain. The only thing more certain is that politicos and people who want gov't grants are going to exaggerate and hype every little anomaly beyond belief in order to garner attention and eventually money. What they hell ever happened to science for the sake of actual knowledge?
  • by sumdumass (711423) on Sunday November 05, 2006 @09:22PM (#16730113) Journal
    I find it funny that a story like this with the typical bash bush mantra has come out and the conslusion is the "Bush cannot run away from this one".

    The fact is that bush hasn't run away from environmental issues at all. What he has done is not fall for every quick fix and explanation and adopted some "we need to get rid of the internal combustion engine by tomorrow" attitude. As others have or will point out, the current solutions are more of a economic redistribution of wealth and weakening of national stature then a fix for global warming.

    Bush has created or secured wetlands habitat, has increased the fuel econemy rating for a good portion of vehicles on the road. Some SUVs are no longer exempt from the cafe standards and are required to get better mialage now. He has invested millions into alternative and green energy on several different initiatives plus reauthorized initiatives started under previous administrations.

    I know this stuff doesn't count because Bush is evil and it doesn't fit our bashing campaign right now. Especially when we need him to look bad so close to an election cycle so the opposition can take a department of the government over to them. But what this really says is that all the "opponents to global warming" are seemingly more correct when they claim ulterior motives from the "the world is going to end" global warming crowd. I can understand some people just not being informed. But statements like yours show and agenda that can be placed into a number of conspiracies that will retard the development of any future works to help curve global warming. Do we really need something like that? We have a whole group pf people against Kyoto because it places what some people claim to be unrealistic expectations on developed countries while the solution if it cannot be met is to "pollute in a less developed country" or "pay less developed countries not to develop in a way that pollutes".

    People take that to mean "forced redistribution of wealth" and point to people like you ignoring what little the president has done for the environment then look at their friends and say "see what i mean, they are trying to buffalo you for a one world order, socialist world order, or something worse"(worse being the trying to move all America's industry across seas so to make an economic blockade effective and force legislation on us in the way we do other countries).

    Keep giving them ammunition and watch how little gets done.
  • Re:Polar bears (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Dravik (699631) on Sunday November 05, 2006 @09:39PM (#16730221)
    Environmentalists don't have much room to complain about starving children dying of malaria. They are the ones who completely banned DDT thus removing the most effective anti malaria efforts. Do you have any solutions that won't destroy the economy and create more poor starving people to die from the malaria?
  • by kasparov (105041) * on Monday November 06, 2006 @01:31AM (#16731741)
    How noble it was to start a war with a country that was no threat to us. How noble of the current administration to illegaly spy on innocent U.S. citizens who aren't even suspected of a crime. How noble to ship un-tried prisoners to secret prisons to be tortured. How noble to pass legislation to allow the indefinite imprisonment of un-tried people who are defined as enemy combatants by the president. HOW...FUCKING...NOBLE. If we were any more noble, I just don't know what we would do with ourselves.

    I normally try to avoid ranting, but these last few years have just been eating away at me--and I was once a pretty staunch Republican. I just don't understand how a country that was founded on such great principles could fall so far. What have we allowed to be done in our names?

Computers can figure out all kinds of problems, except the things in the world that just don't add up.

Working...