quote: As Ice Thaws, Arctic Peoples at Loss for Words
2 hours, 58 minutes ago Science - Reuters
By Alister Doyle, Environment Correspondent
REYKJAVIK, Iceland (Reuters) - What are the words used by indigenous peoples in the Arctic for "hornet," "robin," "elk," "barn owl" or "salmon?" If you don't know, you're not alone.
Many indigenous languages have no words for legions of new animals, insects and plants advancing north as global warming thaws the polar ice and lets forests creep over tundra. ... An eight-nation report this month says the Arctic is warming twice as fast as the rest of the planet and that the North Pole could be ice-free in northern hemisphere summer by 2100, threatening indigenous cultures and perhaps wiping out creatures like polar bears.
The report, by 250 scientists and funded by the United States, Canada, Russia, Sweden, Finland, Norway, Denmark and Iceland, puts most of the blame on a build-up of heat-trapping gases from human use of fossil fuels like coal and oil.
The U.S. is the only country among the eight to reject the 127-nation Kyoto protocol meant to cap emissions of greenhouse gases. President Bush (news - web sites) says the U.N. pact would cost too much and unfairly excludes developing states.
excerpts from a reuters story, link This is so sad--these cultures don't even have words for the plants and animals sweeping north in the wake of global warming. No Arctic ice in summer in less than a century!! It's a defensible postion for Bush to claim that the Kyoto Accords limiting CO2 and other emissions is unfair to developed countries, although many 1st world countries have signed it. It's just sick apathy to not negotiate or suggest any alternatives. Bush will go down in history as the most envirnmentally apathetic president in generations if he stays this course, as I assume he will because he hates changing his mind or admiting mistakes. Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know the details of what Clinton did. He did sign it though right? If he was against it behind the scenes, screw him too.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
"But boo on you for implying it was only a problem under my guy."
"I don't care about the guy! I care about the problem!"
I'm there with ya, Morbo. Somebody in the US (since that's the country we're talking about, not that they're the only guilty party) has to table something meaningful to cut back on pollution. Not to mention the general reliance on fossil fuels and water squandering.
Sadly, as for a solution, I've got nothing.
Posts: 3243 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
"But boo on you for implying it was only a problem under my guy."
"I don't care about the guy! I care about the problem!"
I'm there with ya, Morbo. Somebody in the US (since that's the country we're talking about, not that they're the only guilty party) has to table something meaningful to cut back on pollution. Not to mention the general reliance on fossil fuels and water squandering.
Sadly, as for a solution, I've got nothing.
BS - that's not what either one of us is saying, BtL.
The sentence "Bush will go down in history as the most envirnmentally apathetic president in generations if he stays this course" IS a comparison.
In other words, Morbo didn't just say, "Look at this, this is a problem." He said, ""Look at this, this is a problem. And the current President is the worst President ever when dealing with this issue."
A response comparing this President's actions with a past President's action is relevant and fair in that circumstance.
You know what's pathetic? Misstating a discussion in order to call it pathetic.
posted
Dude, I think you may want to rethink letting that post continue to exist. It's not exactly one of your finer moments.
Posts: 4534 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Maybe not, but it perfectly reflects my feelings.
If someone calls something pathetic, they should at least have the decency to 1) accurately reflect the content of the discussion to date, and 2) when inaccuracies are pointed out, either dispute the nature of the inaccuracies or admit they were wrong.
If someone doesn't want to discuss something with someone else, it would behoove them not to begin discussing it with the other person in the first place. Not take their ball and go home.
posted
::shrug:: It's your choice, obviously. It is a bit easier to maintain the moral high ground, though, when you don't resort to name-calling or profanity.
Posts: 4534 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Nonpartisan GAO Blasts Administration's Kyoto Blueprint Congressional Audit Reveals Fundamental Omissions in Greenhouse Gas Plan
At a hearing last week before the Senate Energy Committee, the General Accounting Office (GAO), Congress' nonpartisan investigative office, revealed that the White House virtually had no plan behind its proposal to reduce greenhouse gas emissions as it entered into the final negotiations of the international climate change protocol completed last December in Kyoto. Nor has the GAO found any evidence of a solid plan to date -- even as the Administration continues aggressively to move forward in lobbying for support of the Kyoto agreement.
On December 10, 1997, when the Administration announced its support for the Kyoto protocol, President Clinton stated "this agreement is environmentally strong and economically sound." Yet, based on the GAO's findings, it appears the Administration had been operating less on knowledge and more by seat-of-the-pants.
In the course of its investigation requested last November by Senators Craig, Murkowski, Helms, and Hagel (which precipitated the Energy Committee hearing), the GAO indicated it was unable to find:
either an overall implementation plan for the Administration's proposal or how the initial (Stage I) proposal would fit in an overall plan; or
any evidence that such plans were even under development; or
any plan for coordination between the 14 federal agencies currently involved; or
any cost-benefit analysis of the various proposals; or
any targets to be reached; or
any plans for plans.
And for this the Administration has asked $6.3 billion in President Clinton's latest budget. Meanwhile, the Administration has not submitted, and has no intention of submitting, the Kyoto protocol to the Senate this year for ratification, knowing it would fail.
How dare the Clinton Admionistration even think of entering into a $6.3 Billion project without any plan or strategy! What a bunch of morons!
Posts: 1862 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
And all this for something my meteorology teacher said was a naturally occuring phenomenon. My textbook had the cause as a general warming trend of the earth. It should reach its peak and begin cooling again in the next few thousand years.
On a humanitarian note, could we move the polar bears to Antarctica? Would they have enough food to eat there? I like polar bears, but I'd hate to see them eating one of the most adorable of God's creations, the penguin.
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Polar bears are also by repute the nastiest most vile-tempered kind of bears in existence. I mean they have to be to survive where they do, but I don't know that a mass transplantation to Antarctica would be feasible. Not to mention that then we'd be messing with another fragile ecosystem.
posted
I think Bush HAS been one of the most apathetic, perhaps even maliciously so, though not on this particular facet. I know there are some arguments for allowing greater logging and the like to occur on federal land, but when the same administration doing this has squelched various reports, on more than one occassion (the global warming one, and the arsenic one), I have to be somewhat skeptical, even if Clinton screwed it up when it was his chance.
At the time that Clinton signed the KyotoTreaty, China used about a fifth of the oil&gas as the UnitedStates, and had about five times the population. In other words, the average American used ~25times the amount oil&gas as the average Chinese. The type of treaty that the Republicans claim they would approve of would have frozen that ratio. Since it is rather absurd to expect China, India, and other developing nations to accept such a permanent imbalance -- and knowing that the averageWesternEuropean uses around 40% the energy as an average American to maintain a comparable lifestyle -- a discerning person would suspect that Republicans merely threw up an impassable barrier to approval as camouflage for their anti-environmental agenda. From other laws passed by the RepublicanCongress, one would suspect that Republicans would oppose any treaty which would reduce pollution and lessen the US's habit of wasting fossil fuels.
Given that Senate Republicans rejected the ComprehensiveTestBanTreaty, it would have been an act of total futility for Clinton to have submitted the KyotoTreaty for Senate approval after already being warned it wouldn't fly. Even if one makes the extremely broad leap to the assumption that most SenateDemocrats voted for the resolution urging rejection to strengthen the President's hand in negotiations with other countries, it wouldn't have passed anyway.
Considering how deliberately disinformed and absurdly ignorant most voters are about the economic effects of environmental protection, about the only thing that a vote getting individual Senators on record about the KyotoTreaty would do is provide ammunition -- ie simple-but-false charges about negative effects of approval -- for the next election against the most environmentally-friendly Senators.
Nonetheless, it was politically significant on the international level for Clinton to sign the KyotoTreaty as a commitment that the President would try to influence Americans into reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Kinda like Clinton pledging that the President would abide by the conditions of ComprehensiveTestBanTreaty even in the face of disapproval by the Senate. Dubya has stated the opposite in both cases.
posted
Yeah, it does appear Dagonee's characterization of the Clinton administration working against Kyoto behind the scenes may not be accurate.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
By the way, I was trying to post ascii art before. I've seen other people do it. Why can't I? Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: Sen. John McCain called on President Bush Tuesday to do more to fight global warming. McCain, R-Ariz., pointed to a study on rising Arctic temperatures as further evidence that changes in the earth's climate aren't being addressed seriously enough.
quote: McCain said the study, which was released last week, "clearly demonstrates that climate change is real and has far-reaching implications for society."
Not so, said Sen. James Inhofe, chairman of the environment committee, who has described global warming as a hoax. In a statement, Inhofe called the study yet another scare tactic.
"Alarmists continue to pursue doomsday scenarios about global warming, but without releasing the basis for their claims," said Inhofe, R-Okla.
quote: The administration has acknowledged that Bush's climate plan, unveiled in 2002, will not reduce the amount of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases going into the atmosphere. Instead, it calls on industry to voluntarily reduce the amount of greenhouse gases released as a percentage of economic growth — 18% by 2012, or about 1.5% a year. That is about the same rate of reduction that has occurred over the past 12 years.
Bush in 2001 abandoned a campaign pledge to restrict carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels, then rejected an international climate treaty for mandatory controls on carbon dioxide and other gases that many scientists blame for warming the atmosphere.
I think the evidence provided in this article, coupled with fellow-republican McCain's statements shows that Bush indeed could be doing a better job than what he is doing.
Posts: 2756 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the whole global warming is a hoax spin is starting to pretty much die down, and now we'll be seeing the can't prove it's manmade portion of the spin start to loom much larger.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: It's apparantly OK for a President to sign a treaty while opposing it's ratification. That's not dishonest.
But you first said that he signed it 'while opposing it', not
quote: He signed a treaty. He knew it wouldn't get ratified. He made no attempt to get it ratified.
This implies, to me, that he was, so to speak, working behind the scenes to make sure the senate didn't pass it, even though he signed it.
Even if you want to go with the idea that he 'made no attempt' to get it passed, what makes you say that?
You and HE seem to want to imply that Clinton was no better than Bush in regards to getting Kyoto passed, and I don't see evidence for this, in regards to Kyoto.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Opposing" was poor word choice. "Not supporting it" would have been better. He signed the treaty never intending to formally seek it's ratification, knowing he could not obtain ratification if he sought it. He never made any real attempt to get the 40+ members of his party who opposed ratification to support the treaty.
posted
I will freely admit to being a pretty big skeptic on this subject. I have yet to see evidence that shows a cause-effect relationship for fossil fuels and global warming.
I remember all the fuss over CFCs and ozone holes. I also remember going to Kennedy Space Center and looking at the satelite photos of the ozone layer. It was a cyclical change through the seasons. The pictures were almost identical each month for ten years. There was plenty of hype over the hole, but no evidence it wasn't supposed to be there.
For the other skeptics, here's some websites I googled. NASA refuses to come down either way. They maintain more study is needed first. However, I really liked the science links.
posted
Dag, what do the mods have to do with it? Were you edited by the mods recently? Perhaps I overspoke myself about Bush. I'm just frustrated that the freaking polar ice caps are melting and the administrtion says "more study is required." Also, this administration has developed a repution for disregarding their own scientists in the EPA, so they have little crediblity with me. To the doubters about global warming and mankinds' contribution to same, I sympathize with your doubts. The whole issue has been politicized, spun and manipulated by the right, the left and the scientists working for both sides. In my opinion, global warming is real. I think an emerging consensus of climatologists feel this way, though there might be no consensus at this time, so maybe that's jumping the gun on my part. Whether human industry is a significent part of GW is a seperate and more contraversial issue. There's little doubt CO2 has gone up since the Industrial Revolution, but how much? How much is directly attributable to humans? How big a factor is it in global temps?
And most importantly, would cutting back CO2 and other greenhouse gases now have a significent impact?
However, cutting emissions would have positive effects for local climates, like cutting smog and acid rain for example, so I think cuts are worth the cost.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Also, isn't about time the right acquired a new whipping boy to replace Clinton? He's been gone for 4 years already, move on. . . Seriously, I had forgotten that back story on Kyoto, thanks for bringing it up. I can't believe the Senate was that unanimous against the treaty, that sucks.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm with AvidReader on this one. Global Warming is a pretty touchy subject, but there are reports on both sides of the issue that have merit. At least in my opinion.
I still believe that the planet can handle the CO2 emissions as they are now, but, by the same token, we need to be better stewards of the planet and roll back a bit on our impact.
Most importantly, though, I believe we need to look at the bigger picture of pollutants rather than just the iffy part of global warming. While there is a chance that global warming is a part of nature, dioxins in the water supply aren't, nor are some of the carcinogens released from smokestacks.
Kyoto is a nice effort, but I'm not so sure that they haven't taken their initiatives down to narrow of a path.
Posts: 472 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
My Prius is a really nice car. The engine shuts off when I'm at a stoplight. Sometimes it doesn't come back on when I drive it down the road. I usually get about 43 mpg. Sometimes 47 (sometimes 80, but it catches up with me). I hear the new ones get even better mileage.
My new furnace uses about 40% less oil than my old one.
I helped develop oxyfuel alternatives to air-fired industrial combustion that also reduce fuel requirements and CO2 emissions. Also low NOx coal combustion. But most of them haven't been adopted by industry, even though they work.
Why is it so hard to "come up with a plan" to reduce CO2 emissions?
The easiest would simply be to put SUVs and cars on the same CAFE.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes! CAFE standards have been flat for years thanks to a complacent Congress, presidents and electorate. And dropping the SUV exemptions would be a huge step forward.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
But cars are just one portion of any pollution scale back.
Power plants that are coal or oil fired, now that's an area that really could take some looking at. But then again, nuclear power would just open up a bigger can of worms...
Posts: 472 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
As I understand it, cars, home heating, and industry each share roughly 30% of the U.S. hydrocarbon consumption.
If you look at my previous post, you'll see that I covered all three. It's just that the CAFE standards could be changed with a stroke of the pen. The other two are a little more complicated.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Earth has gone through cycles of hotter periods and colder periods throughout its entire existence. We are currently heading out of a cold period (the height of which we refer to as the last Ice Age). Therefore, by definition, it's going to get warmer. Temperatures will rise. Ice will melt. This has happened before.
I find it pathetic the way people assume that whatever state the world was in when we got here is its one "natural" state, and that any changes that we're around to witness are somehow our fault. Such notions assign more power to us than we actually have, first of all, and also completely ignore the fact that Earth has been in flux for billions of years already. It is always changing in one way or another, and would be warming up right now whether we were here to see it or not.
posted
Considering that the opinion of a huge number of scientists is that we are not heading out of an ice age but should in fact be in the middle of an ice age, I think the correctness of your position may not be so obvious as you seem to think.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
NASA has a good review of the science supporting this as a concern at the online earth observatory library:
quote:Rarely in the Earth’s history has the average surface temperature changed as dramatically as the changes that scientists are predicting for the next century. During the last ice age 20,000 years ago, for instance, the Earth was roughly 5°C cooler than it is today. Since then it has warmed up, although not steadily, to present levels. That’s an increase of roughly 1°C every 4,000 years. Current global warming scenarios predict, at the bare minimum, a 1°C increase over the next century.
It isn't just that there is a change but the rate of change which has caused such concern.
[ November 23, 2004, 11:42 AM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
Posts: 2919 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I find it pathetic the way people assume that whatever state the world was in when we got here is its one "natural" state, and that any changes that we're around to witness are somehow our fault.
Verily, of course the world is in flux. But CO2 levels have risen dramatically in the past few centuries, along with human populations and industry. Many scientists don't think it's a coincidence.
As far as a "natural" state, I'll take one where S. Florida, Bangladesh and the Netherlands stay above the waves any day, however it's acheived.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Many Scientists" also come up with theories about the visual acuity of Tyrannosaurs when we don't even have one complete skeleton in existence.
There is, unfortunately, little distance from "many scientists have proposed" to "many scientists think" to "scientists say."
The fact of the matter is that we don't know and there are respected scientists on both sides of the debate. It's very presumptuous and alarmist to go around saying that every one who doesn't agree with your crowd of researchers is bent on destruction of the planet.
For all the fuss made over inappropriate attempts at religious conversion, you would think people would come to understand that demonizing your opponents is not the way to get anyone new to agree with you.
and can we get of the word "pathetic", please? It's seen more than enough use in this thread.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
![[Cry]](graemlins/cry.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
