Melting Arctic Ice Has Consequences 466
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.
Re: How dare they! (Score:4, Interesting)
Ok, seriously, what made it so hot back in 1936? Was it just a natural occurrence, or was it man made way back then?
Transporter_ii
Re:Who's the troll? (Score:3, Interesting)
The US has entrenched technology that will take decades if not centuries to phase out; coal and oil fired power plants, internal combustion engines for automobiles, oil, natural gas, and coal heat for homes, and so forth.
China has a great opportunity to go electric across the board from the get-go, using nuclear power and solar power. Their infrastructure is still immature, and as such there is no huge investment in existing power to speak of. I'm sure that the folks working in agriculture are still using wood, peat, or coal for heat, and have not spent thousands on oil-fired central heating systems for their homes; why not go electric from the beginning? Then emissions controls can be centralized, and their choice for petrol-vs.-nuke-vs.-wind can be made now. What's more, if so-called environmentalists who really are all about "NIMBY" can't block this development like they can here with their bleeding heart "think of the children" whining. (sorry about that last comment, I'm just really bitter about so-called environmentalist dropping the cape wind project in Nantucket Sound, especially that drunkard Ted Kennedy who claims to be an environmentalist)
Re:Who's the troll? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Political Bullshit (Score:3, Interesting)
The word "environmentalist" makes me cringe, though not as much as the word "anti-environmentalist" does, I'll admit. I am just doing my part to explain the difference between the facts and the noise that is injected by people with many billions of dollars of fossil fuel assets that they are motivated to protect.
However, you are right that I do dismiss the contemporary crop of "global warming skeptics".
I dismiss "global warming skeptics" because they are incoherent and wrong and well-funded by non-scientific interests. If there weren't a lot of money at stake the skeptics would vanish. They don't have a coherent theory. If they did, they would get a hearing in scientific circles. They don't, so they are busy running around looking scientific for the press, and taking in people who are philosophically uncomfortable with the implications of the science.
Fifteen years ago there were interesting arguments against taking action. Now all the arguments are based on wishful thinking. I haven't seen an argument against restraining net carbon emissions with any "merits" for some considerable time, and it is not for want of looking.
I am sure you would not like some of my political opinions, but I am not discussing my politics in this thread. You are entitled to your own opinion but you are not entitled to your own facts.