'The Arctic is screaming,' expert says

[mememine69]

Travelin Matt wrote:

OK, how about you? Would you let your kids go to school 5 days a week for 8 hours a day, 3000 yards from a power plant that emits those toxins in those amounts? The heavy metals (lead and mercury) will settle within a few miles of the plant. Our school is in the so near and right in the direction the wind blows.
1/70th of a teaspoon of mercury will pollute a 25 acre lake, we will get .037 tons of it per year dropped on our kids!
Coal is killing us. literally

Well you must be dead wrong because how else can you explain why we are living longer NOW than at any other time in human history as a species.
I find your level of pessimism and fear astounding.

[Travelin Matt]

Well Im not going to sit and argue with someone not living in it.
People around here usually check out in their 60s.
I guess if you don't live here and don't see it everyday it must not exist.

[Boy Scout]

Travelin Matt wrote:

OK, how about you? Would you let your kids go to school 5 days a week for 8 hours a day, 3000 yards from a power plant that emits those toxins in those amounts? The heavy metals (lead and mercury) will settle within a few miles of the plant. Our school is in the so near and right in the direction the wind blows.
1/70th of a teaspoon of mercury will pollute a 25 acre lake, we will get .037 tons of it per year dropped on our kids!
Coal is killing us. literally

So who are your elected officials? Do all the parents there just wring their hands and say oh-well?

I'm with you on what you say, but as every aspect of our gov is corrupted to the core and americans don't care if they are killing american children--well, I guess we see the truth about america.

[mememine69]

Travelin Matt wrote:

Well Im not going to sit and argue with someone not living in it.
People around here usually check out in their 60s.
I guess if you don't live here and don't see it everyday it must not exist.

No I don't want to live in your version of reality that's for sure thank you very much.
It's not as bad as you think it is.
In fact, life is great and I'm grateful for being fortunate enough to be living in an age like this. What point in history was better than this, in your version of reality of course?

[Shiva Dance]

mememine69 wrote:

<quoted text>\
Do you think that ALL pollution STAYS in the air for ever? That’s the only way you could be concerned about the smaller amount of pollution we produce now compared to the smoggy 70's. And have you ever heard of volcanoes? Even Greenpeace admits we pollute far less now thanks to controls, laws, protections and technology thanks mostly to good old Rachel Carson.(my hero by the way)
You really don't have to be so worried about this because how else could you explain the existence of a clear blue-sky day?
You are expressing cultural fear. You are not alone, that’s for sure.
:)

What you are crediting Rachael Carson’s book, but her writings are only a small part of the whole story. Perhaps you should consider thanking some of us that got our heads beat in and those that spent weeks in the hospital for questioning and fighting the establishment. The Green Peace folks, the hippies and the tree hugging environmentalist - perhaps it would be good to give them credit for your blue sky and clean water. I’m certain that the establishment at the time would have been very happy to do what you are doing, turning a blind eye and a deaf ear to reason. I mention this because you seem very proud of the clean air and blue sky and yet are unwilling to participate in its preservation.

[mememine69]

Shiva Dance wrote:

<quoted text>
What you are crediting Rachael Carson’s book, but her writings are only a small part of the whole story. Perhaps you should consider thanking some of us that got our heads beat in and those that spent weeks in the hospital for questioning and fighting the establishment. The Green Peace folks, the hippies and the tree hugging environmentalist - perhaps it would be good to give them credit for your blue sky and clean water. I’m certain that the establishment at the time would have been very happy to do what you are doing, turning a blind eye and a deaf ear to reason. I mention this because you seem very proud of the clean air and blue sky and yet are unwilling to participate in its preservation.

You say I am unwilling to participate in our environments preservation? Well yes I am but not through crisis mentality. Modern day environmentalism is not like the real revolutionaries of Rachel Carson’s time. Today they are fear mongering, naive, gullible and sometimes narcissist new age lemmings that believe what politicians and big business corporate media tells them. Enviros have become the grim reapers of doom and absorb just about anything the media feeds them. It’s embarrassing.
I just wish they would be REAL activists and challenge the authority of this fear culture and start to question and doubt this myth of CO2 damaging our planet. And any reasonable person knows full well that it was worse in Rachel Carson’s time. Yes I give her great credit. She is rolling in her grave while global warmers forget her spirit of loving this planet, not FEARING it.
Our planet is not in crisis. Would you at least be willing to agree to that? Then we can both work side by side to KEEP our environment healthy for us.

[BEESGIRL]

The reason why the "arctic is screaming" is because IT IS SUMMER, WHEN IT SHOULD BE HOT.

Gore and his non-scientific lackies NEVER YELL GLOBAL WARMING DURING THE WINTER MONTHS OR EVEN DURING THE COLD SPRING we had this year in the USA.

Smarten up people. We do cause a little damage, but the earth does tilt every so often and then tilts back and people scream about "global cooling" like Carter did back in the 70's. Remember???

[Icecap]

Contrary to what Owl Gore and Leonardo DiCaprio say, the global warming debate is not over. Hysterical warnings about flooded coastlines and boiled polar bears remain nothing more than hot-air predictions. Their belief in an approaching apocalypse is based on nothing more than theory and blind faith, when the measures they advocate—the dismantling of capitalist economies and making energy unaffordable for the masses—demand hard evidence.

Well, the latest data on climate change is in and, not surprisingly, it favors the “deniers.” The United Nations World Meteorological Organization, the body that provides climate models to the U.N.’s alarmist global warming panel, reported last week that not only have world temperatures remained stable for the past decade, but that global average temperatures for 2008 will be cooler than those of 2007. Call me crazy, but that has to make it hard to sell the public on giving up their cars and homes in favor of mass transit and high-rise tenements.

[Power_1]

Icecap wrote:

Contrary to what Owl Gore and Leonardo DiCaprio say, the global warming debate is not over. Hysterical warnings about flooded coastlines and boiled polar bears remain nothing more than hot-air predictions. Their belief in an approaching apocalypse is based on nothing more than theory and blind faith, when the measures they advocate—the dismantling of capitalist economies and making energy unaffordable for the masses—demand hard evidence.
Well, the latest data on climate change is in and, not surprisingly, it favors the “deniers.” The United Nations World Meteorological Organization, the body that provides climate models to the U.N.’s alarmist global warming panel, reported last week that not only have world temperatures remained stable for the past decade, but that global average temperatures for 2008 will be cooler than those of 2007. Call me crazy, but that has to make it hard to sell the public on giving up their cars and homes in favor of mass transit and high-rise tenements.

You forgot about ManBearPig.

[Monty]

Cthulhu wrote:

<quoted text>
The arctic is already about as warm as it was back then, the issue isn't now but the future if warming continues.
<quoted text>
Except for all that evidence that the warming temperatures are being caused by human activity.

For which their is none.

[Icecap]

After the coldest April in 11 years, John McCain offers a "market friendly" approach to global warming—saying we "have a genius for adapting, solving problems." But shouldn’t the problems be real?...We were disappointed when, at an Oregon wind turbine manufacturer on Monday, McCain seemed to embrace the shaky environmentalist position on global warming (or global nothing). Saying the costs of our reliance on fossil fuels "have added up now in the atmosphere, in the oceans and all across the natural world," he proposed that by 2050, the U.S. should reduce CO2 emissions to a level 60% below that emitted in 1990. The question is, why? Cold water was thrown on the climate-change disaster hypothesis by the National Climate Data Center’s recent announcement that last month was the coldest April in more than a decade and the 29th coolest since record keeping began 114 years ago. The average temperature was 1 degree cooler than the average April temperature of the entire 20th century. A few weeks ago, as North America was emerging from one of its coldest and snowiest winters in decades, the climate center issued a statement saying that snow cover on the Eurasian land mass had been the most extensive ever recorded, and that this March had been only the 63rd warmest since 1895. On April 24, the World Wildlife Fund published a study, based on last September’s data, showing that Arctic ice had shrunk from 13 million square kilometers to just 3 million. What the WWF omitted was that by March the Arctic ice had recovered to 14 million square kilometers and that the ice cover around the Bering Strait and Alaska was at the highest level ever recorded... We were pleased that McCain endorsed nuclear power as a pollution-free source of energy that can help us toward energy independence while reducing emissions. But the fact is that we will need more energy, not less, by 2050, from all sources. Both economic and technological growth will demand more... Global warming is debatable, both as to its causes and its effects. By taking the lead on domestic energy, McCain could help solve a real problem and make a clear distinction between himself and his head-in-the-tundra opponents.