Alaskan Village Sues Over Global Warming 670
hightower_40 writes to mention that a small Alaskan village has sued two dozen oil, power, and coal companies, blaming them for contributing to global warming. "Sea ice traditionally protected the community, whose economy is based in part on salmon fishing plus subsistence hunting of whale, seal, walrus, and caribou. But sea ice that forms later and melts sooner because of higher temperatures has left the community unprotected from fall and winter storm waves and surges that lash coastal areas."
Mistargeted law suit? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Mistargeted law suit? (Score:4, Interesting)
Attention whoring, in a way.
So they've already won what they wanted: to get attention for the difficulties that they and their neighbors have been having.
IANAL myself, so take this comment cum grano salis.
It's not "mis-targetted" (Score:5, Interesting)
They're looking to cash in on the "environmental windfall lottery",
Just follow the money.
A million bucks each and they'll go away happy. It doesn't cost a million bucks a head to relocate people, unless you're relocating them to the ISS.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
simple really .... (Score:5, Funny)
cost per person to relocate inhabitants = $30,000
cost per person to have lawyers sign moving agreement = $970,000
going to law school and specializing in environmental law
Re:It's not "mis-targetted" (Score:5, Funny)
How do you kill an polarbear? Kick him in the icehole....
A baby seal walks into a club....
Um, all I have for now
Try the veal
Re:It's not "mis-targetted" (Score:4, Funny)
I suppose you walrus hurt the ones you love.
Re:It's not "mis-targetted" (Score:5, Interesting)
There is no place similar to relocate these people and some of them won't be able to function in a city.
So you have relocation, retraining, integration, etc . . .
ONOH I'm sure you think you can just pick someone up, plop them anywhere and that's the end of.
Re:It's not "mis-targetted" (Score:5, Insightful)
they aren't living in igloos. They have rifles, snowmobiles, 4x4s, satellite tv, etc.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Are you saying that culture is tied to a place? So nomads can't have culture and history?
So these people have no culture or history?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roma_people [wikipedia.org]
What about these people?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Travellers [wikipedia.org]
Or these?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yeniche_(people) [wikipedia.org]
Sorry, that's a thinly veiled excuse, and it doesn't fly at all.
I'd have a lot more sympathy if these people hadn't been taking money from the oil companies for years.
http:// [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Go back far enough in history, and your ancestors can make the same claim to someone elses' ancestors. AND vice versa.
At some point, the statute of limitations has to come into effect.
We cannot turn back the clock. Time to move on.
For example, the descendents of the Irish and Scots and French who were forcibly settled in N. American aren't going back to the "mother countries" and kick out the descendents who are still
Re:It's not "mis-targetted" (Score:5, Insightful)
If your culture becomes unviable, you move on. It's not the rest of the planet's job to help you to live like a carbon copy of your father. We find this self evident with business models, but cultures evoke silly emotional reactions.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:It's not "mis-targetted" (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Mistargeted law suit? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Mistargeted law suit? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Mistargeted law suit? (Score:4, Informative)
What is your source for this? The first source listed in OED for "cancer stick" is from 1959. Cassell's Dictionary of Slang [google.com] says it's from the 1950s. Google Books shows nothing to support your claim either.
Re:Mistargeted law suit? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Mistargeted law suit? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Mistargeted law suit? (Score:4, Insightful)
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Library/CarbonCycle/carbon_cycle4.html [nasa.gov] (NASA's Earth Observatory site is currently offline)
(alternate link) http://www.visionlearning.com/library/module_viewer.php?mid=95 [visionlearning.com]
Solar irradiance does directly track historical temperatures; however, the past 30 years have shown increasing temperatures with steady solar irradiance.
Direct satellite measurements of solar irradiance find no rising trend since 1978, the start of measurements. Sunspot numbers have leveled out since 1950. The Max Planck Institute reconstruction shows that irradiance has been steady since 1950 and solar radio flux or flare activity shows no rising trend over the past 30 years.
An increase solar irradiance would warm all layers of the atmosphere as there would be more heat radiating through all atmospheric layers back out to space. An increased greenhouse effect would reflect more heat to the surface, thus warming the lower atmospheric layers and cooling the upper atmospheric layers. The second case is what is being observed.
http://www.mps.mpg.de/dokumente/publikationen/solanki/c153.pdf [mps.mpg.de]
http://www.pmodwrc.ch/pmod.php?topic=tsi/composite/SolarConstant [pmodwrc.ch]
http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Sunspot_Numbers_png [globalwarmingart.com]
ftp://ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov/STP/SOLAR_DATA/SUNSPOT_NUMBERS/MONTHLY.PLT [noaa.gov]
http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Solar_Cycle_Variations_png [globalwarmingart.com]
Re:Mistargeted law suit? (Score:5, Insightful)
Even if coal and oil use is causing noticeable and net deleterious effects, there is some argument that they should be forgiven past liability and even protected from some amount of current liability, as long as they are taking reasonable steps to mitigate deleterious effects, now.
The earth can support 6 billion modern people. It already does. It cannot support 6 billion cave-men.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So, keeping agriculture advances or not, billions of cavemen starve to death and you no longer have six billion.
Re:Mistargeted law suit? (Score:4, Insightful)
Sibling caught the first one: Food.
#2 would be living space. Cities exist today because transportation can support them. Cities are also where the vast majority of people happen to live overall.
Put it this way - if the laws of electricity were somehow revoked tomorrow morning at 9am sharp, within a year at least 1/2 of humanity would be dead, even if everyone knew up-front how to live like a caveman. Starvation, Disease (no medicines anymore), exposure (wanna live in a cave up in North Dakota? Me Neither, but all the ones in southern California are taken), dehydration (places like Las Vegas and Phoenix only exist because we can send a whole lot of water there), predation (from both animals and from really hungry humans), etc etc.
I'm not even counting the wars that would immediately generate because of new scarcities like food, salt, firewood, and the like.
By the by, the resource demands would certainly drop for things like petroleum, but they would rocket for things like plants (for food, clothing and fuel), animals (food and clothing), clean water (no modern sewage treatment anymore, and everybody taking a dump outside will eventually affect the local water table)... Also clean air would be hard to come by. Nobody wants to die of hypothermia, so everyone's gonna burn whatever wood and plants are handy come winter... this means way less trees to go around once everyone gets done stripping the forests for whatever they can lay hands on.
The Gaia worshippers can talk a good game, but the stark fact is, you'd have to reduce the population to roughly 10% of what it is now in order to have any sort of sustainable hunter-gatherer type of lifestyle. This means 90% of everyone else has to go.
(personally, I'd like to see that 90% eventually living in space colonies w/ Earth as one gigantic recreational park, but that's going to take some time...)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Mistargeted law suit? (Score:4, Interesting)
He said "always follow the money". If someone doesn't have money, or at least insurance, don't waste your time and lawyers' fees suing them. Instead look for the richest parties who can be held responsible for the damage and sue them.
I cannot comment myself on how valid my teacher's comments were, but he at least was a lawyer.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Mistargeted law suit? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Now before I go any further lets step back and compare pictures of coal plants to nuclear plants:
Coal plant: Plant is DWARFED by a MOUNTIAN of coal. This is a 50-60 day supply.
Nuclear plant: Every single ounce of fuel that plant has ever used is still in that picture (in holding tanks).
Now that we've seen the difference, lets
Re:Mistargeted law suit? (Score:4, Interesting)
All this, and NO TOXIC WASTE.
Go, propaganda.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Mistargeted law suit? (Score:4, Insightful)
It goes up about 80 feet, so... check.
2: A wind turbine needs to be situated on real estate that actually gets wind.
It goes up about 80 feet, so... check.
3: You need to spend time (and by extension money) maintaining the conditions of my first point.
Right... once a year, trim some branches. Oh, the humanity.
4: The environmental cost of manufacturing & erecting the turbine.
Some aluminum tubes, some plexiglass vanes, and a simple motor. Check.
5: The environmental cost of disposing of the turbine at the end of its lifespan.
Less than toxic waste, heavy water, and radioactive gasses. Check.
6: The environmental cost on wildlife due to lost habitat.
Sixty four square feet. Check.
Seems fairly simple to me.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
As for cost of disposal, don't forget you also have to factor the eventual cost to decommission a nuclear power plant.
Re:Mistargeted law suit? (Score:4, Insightful)
My comment was not meant to say "Gore does no good" but was meant to say "Gore says there are things you should do, like using fuel-efficient vehicles, and he doesn't even follow his own advice."
I have absolutely no problem with someone telling me that they think I should so something--Like drive a fuel efficient car (I do BTW: 1994 Corola)--just as long as they follow their own advice. Mr. Gore does not but, as you say: Why let the facts get in the way?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Maybe you do not understand the concept. Here is what offsetting is: When you can't avoid using fossil fuels, you contribute to a fund that builds wind, solar and other alternative non-carbon energy infrastructure. So your use of fossil fuels now is OFFSET by the future non-carbon generating capacity you are helping to develop.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
To create these solar/wind farms is a net loss in terms of environmental impact. Not only do you have to use "fossil fuels" to construct them, you also have to clear large amounts of land.
Couldn't those cute little bunnies and spotted owls use that land better?~
But I digress: Nuclear is much better for the envioronment than wind/solar power. It is that simple.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
- off-shore
- on ridges
- in plains with heavy prevailing winds
- in deserts
- on rooftops
In short, no place that actually needs to be cleared of anything. Not to mention that building ANYTHING requires the use of fossil fuels. ESPECIALLY your precious nuclear plants, whose fuel has to be dug out of mines with giant excavation equipment.
Seriously. There are plenty of reasons to rail against Gore
WHy do prpoents of wind power (Score:4, Interesting)
TYhere are uisually put where there are strong winds; which are often migratory paths for birds. The Wind farm in califormia kill 1000's of birds a year.
The wind slows down, so what efect does taking energy from the wind have? does it change rain fall patterns? certianly, does it change bird migration? wetlands? inland rainfall?
I'm not saying we should try it, just thet we should remember that we don't get something for nothing. Also,'renewable energy' is a marketing phrase.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Mistargeted law suit? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Please.
You could just as easily say the reverse: Al Gore doesn't just buy carbon offsets, he participates in an entire company whose whole purpose is to replace CO2-emitting activities with equivalent non-CO2-emitting ones.
Actually, come to think of it, that wouldn't even be a frame [wikipedia.org] on the issue -- it would be the truth.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Do you have any idea how many trees he would have to plant for even ONE flight? And how much energy would be used to plant those trees?
If Gore really wanted to reduce his carbon footprint, he'd use the internet to "meet" with people - but that wouldn't generate as much $$$$ as personal appearance do.
Then add up all the extra energy used by people who drive to each of his "events".
Al Gore really is a "do as I say, not as I do" politician. Maybe that's what it takes, but it is hypocritical to some of u
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If Gore really wanted to reduce his carbon footprint, he'd use the internet to "meet" with people - but that wouldn't generate as much $$$$ as personal appearance do.
Also, if you're a large company or a government considering future development, the slick oil exec with a private jet is going to win you over if the only alternative voice is an eccentric vice-president who lives in a one-room apartment trying to videoconference with you over iChat. Gore, like many people, needs air travel to do his work. Since Gore isn't asking anyone to forego air travel entirely he's not at all a hypocrite for not doing so himself--especially when his doing so is part and parcel of co
Re:But they are targeting everyone! (Score:5, Insightful)
Quite frankly, if I were an oil company, and had politicians getting elected promising to ram a pitchfork up my ass, all the while they claim they're gonna decimate oil with alternative fuels, I'd be dragging ass too in constructing new oil pipelines, infrastructure, refineries, and the like, when, if said politicians have their way, much of that new stuff'll be useless in a few years as oil use decreases and thus you cannot recoup your billions.
Screw that government and the people that elect it. Raise prices!
Do not mark this flamebait. This is a serious analysis. That it upsets you, well, read my
Surges That Lash Coastal... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Surges That Lash Coastal... (Score:5, Funny)
The funny thing... (Score:5, Insightful)
I do love the part where they're complaining that global warming is keeping them from hunting "whale, seal, walrus, and caribou". Maybe Leonardo diCaprio should make a movie about that!
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
If so I would say... If you are part the problem then why should you sue?
re: The funny thing - Eskimo cars (Score:5, Funny)
"No," says the Eskimo, "it's just frost on my mustache."
~~~
(What the hell, I've got some karma to burn.)
More about money grubbing lawyers... (Score:5, Insightful)
Shoot, why don't we all climb on board. Oh, wait - I drive a car to work and use natural gas to heat my home, plus electricity to power my net activities...
I'm going to sue the Sun! (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Local weather does not refute a global climate trend.
I'm pretty sure that freaking SUNSPOTS probably create global climate trends. You know, unless you have a few sunspots caged up in your backyard.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Enjoin the Sun (Score:4, Insightful)
If anything is substantially responsible for increasing the earth's temperature, it's that nuclear-reactor-in-the-sky.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"Alaskan Village" (Score:5, Informative)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Native_Claims_Settlement_Act [wikipedia.org]
which established:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Native_Regional_Corporations [wikipedia.org]
We're talking about the established tribal "village," which is a legal entity representing a group of natives for purposes of interacting with the Regional Corporations, not the traditional meaning of the word. The easiest comparison would be if you took recognized Native American tribes from the lower 48 and segmented them up into "villages" of roughly the size of a rural town.
Comment removed (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Antarctic sea ice is at record high levels, while Antarctic land-based ice loss speeds up [sciencedaily.com] (full paper [cosis.net]).
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
*Maybe* looking at something more than a few months is more valid when looking at long term trends like Global Warming trend???????? You know, a few weeks or months of cold doesn't mean "global cooling".
Also, the sun just started a new 11-year cycle this year. The solar output was marginally dropping for few years now and now it will increase. Cheers and enjoy more denying in spite of reality.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_minimum [wikipedia.org]
http://science.nasa.gov/headline [nasa.gov]
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Go directly to the NASA GISS site [nasa.gov] and check the data. It shows that 2007 is tied for second warmest since they've been tracking. The other temperature sources show the same thing. Daily Tech is either using bad data or deliberately lying.
How far back? (Score:4, Funny)
In other news... Exxon trying to nor pay damages (Score:4, Interesting)
At least in the oil spill, one defendant is involved, Exxon. In global warming, who is culpable, and to what extent? Who suffered, and what dollar amounts? And what is an appropriate punitive damages number? Adn think of the endless appeals.
Re:In other news... Exxon trying to nor pay damage (Score:3, Informative)
I wonder how much global warming... (Score:3, Insightful)
Steven Seagal will make another movie... (Score:3, Funny)
Fight global warming with aikido!!!
speaking as an Alaskan (Score:4, Funny)
Climate Change. (Score:5, Interesting)
On now that evidence is arising that discredits the notion of global warming the terms get switched around on us. So now it's climate change. The nice thing about this term is that it's so all-encompassing. Any time we get weather a bit out of the ordinary it's chalked up to be due to climate change, specifically man-made climate change.
Last month is snowed lightly in Baghdad for the first time anyone can recall. You'd think so impressive an event would be covered more than it was. I eventually found a brief Agence France-Presse story about it. Predictably they stick a bit in there about how this was due to climate change. Like there's a set temperature for any spot on Earth.
I guess the implication is that the Earth's climate has always been static. I can't help but think that Creationists should be the most ardent believers of man-made climate change given that they're convinced the Earth is only 6000 years old.
Forecasters can barely predict the weather into next week and I'm supposed to accept has fact incomplete computer models that predict the weather in the next 50 or 100 years. More importantly, I'm supposed to subscribe to the belief that a global temperature increase is inherently a bad thing.
A while ago I was reading about the history of Japan, specifically the Jomon period. It turns out that between 4000BC and 2000BC temperatures tended to be several degrees Celsius higher then they are today and the seas are believed to have been 5m higher. The fascinating part was that the people living in Japan at the time thrived during this era, having developed rice-paddy farming and government control. When the climate cooled the population of these people declined dramatically. This trend is reflected around the world. Europe endured famines in the 1300s during periods of cooling and glacial expansion.
Unfortunately, it seems to be taboo to argue against man-made climate change. Any evidence critics put forward is dismissed off-hand. The double-standards are laughable. A believer will use a localized event as evidence of climate change. A critic does the same and their argument is discredited for being based on local weather.
So now we have these eskimo pulling what is essentially a publicity stunt. Well, it's worse than that. Behind them are a pack of scumbag lawyers looking to line their pockets.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Yes but... (Score:4, Insightful)
The simple facts that elude everyone on each side of this argument (regardless of which side is correct) are:
It does baffle me that instead of looking at the other valid reasons (and I listed only a few that quickly came to mind) people dismiss this "issue" because it is possibly targeting the wrong problem created by the issue. Lowering emissions is still just as relevant simply to maintain a clean, properly balanced atmosphere... anyone remember SanFran a few decades ago? It is obvious we can make a difference in our environment - negative or positive - but it is up to us to choose - and pretending CO2 and CO emissions aren't a problem simply because they may not cause global warming; when we know they do cause various other health and environmental problems is not the step in the right direction.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Humans live better, longer and with less health issues when breathing a nitrogen/oxygen atmosphere - unpolluted with CO emissions and such other byproducts (regardless of which are possible causes of global warming)
Did you mean "unpolluted by CO2 emissions"? Because I don't want to breathe much carbon monoxide either. (And, fortunately, I don't.)
If you did, though, please consider! The Earth's atmosphere already has billions of tons of carbon dioxide. Human emissions have increased this some, and this increase may or may not be Bad and Cause Global Warming, but calling CO2 "pollution" is like calling the ocean "polluted with salt".
CO2 is there. Naturally. In far, far greater quantities than Man ever put there.
Re:Yes but... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Yes but... (Score:5, Informative)
No more than anecdotal evidence, to be sure. But now, that evidence has been supplanted by hard scientific fact. All four major global temperature tracking outlets (Hadley, NASA's GISS, UAH, RSS) have released updated data. All show that over the past year, global temperatures have dropped precipitously.
It appears to me that those who said that the SUN was causing global warming due to increased sunspot activity, that has recently subsided, were correct. And all those scientist that claimed it was solely man made were wrong.
Re:Yes but... (Score:5, Informative)
Their data also shows that I think 8 months of 2007 were warmer than the corresponding months in 2006 - and all months of 2007 were at least as warm as the corresponding months in 2000.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Temperature changes are well understood to happen more gradually than a few years. If the next decade would show cooling that still wouldn't mean anything about the long term trend. Short term reversals of some trends can and do happen. A volcano spewed sulfur into the atmosphere? Solar output decreased very slightly? And so on...
This doesn't invalidate the long term war
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This doesn't invalidate the long term warming trend and the science behind global warming, at all.
You are correct. There has been a warming trend over past 20 years or so. What this data does is support the notion that worldwide temperatures change constantly. That means they are either going up (global warming), or going down. It always has and always will. The point is not to freak out and wreck worldwide economies and deprive people of their basic freedoms [knowledgeproblem.com] because of a few degrees change one way or the other.
Re: Yes but... (Score:5, Insightful)
You answered:
I'm not saying that the climate didn't change or isn't changing. It is always changing. I'm saying that it is natural, not man made and that the "hockey stick" predictions of future climate models were dead wrong.
Re: Yes but... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Yes but... (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Does Exxon fund wikipedia now? Most of those looked like US Federal Agencies or universities. I know Exxon's a tax payer, but I seriously doubt that they pay for that much climate research. Damn, that's really impressive. I didn't realize Exxon funded
Joint science academies' statement 2007
Federal Climate Change Science Program, 2006
American Meteorological Society
American Association for the Advancement of Science.
That actually makes
Re:Yes but... (Score:4, Insightful)
I just pointed out that you were linking to an Exxon-funded front-group, so people can evaluate what they are seeing.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"Doubt is our product" was the strategy used by the tobacco companies to pollute public understanding of the science about cancer. More than 100 million people have been killed by tobac
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You are linking to a site that is funded by Exxon, in case you didn't know.
That's called an ad hominem [nizkor.org] attack, in case you didn't know.
From your link
"An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument."
I'd say the fact the entity making the claims about global warming is funded by an oil company is pretty damn relevant.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Wikipedia: "According to a PBS Frontline report, "Dr. Lindzen is a member of the Advisory Council of the Annapolis Center for Science Based Public Policy, which has received large amounts of funding from ExxonMobil and smaller amounts from Daimler Chrysler, according to a review [of] Exxon's own financial documents and 990s from Daimler Chrysler's Foundation. Lindzen is a also been
Re:Erm (Score:4, Informative)
Or at least before we switch back to "Igloo effect" hysteria!!!
http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature+Monitors+Report+Worldwide+Global+Cooling/article10866.htm [dailytech.com]
I was taught about climate change in middle school from a book that managed to have both cooling and warming in it, so I am always skeptical...
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
But how much of the change is anthropomorphic?
Is climate change driven by solar activity or CO2 levels or other or all?
Is humanity responsible for an appreciable amount of the CO2?
At one point I thought hurricanes were going to kill us all and we were blaming global warming. The last two years have been very quiet... You should not extrapolate noisy data.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
However, the linked article says that the GLOBAL temperature (presumably mean) has dropped precipitously in the past year. There are some graphs here [wordpress.com] that at least apparently back this up. According to the article in the Daily Tech, this is enough to offset all the increase in the last 100 years.
I have no way of testing the data, indeed, no way of knowing if they are talking about mean or median temperature in the articles, but just to be clear: the article that is linked is not saying "some places are co
In a time long ago(the 70's) (Score:3, Insightful)
SOme people thought there would be cloaud cover, and therefore less heat on the earth, some believed the heat would be absorbed. both would create significant climate change.
As time marched on, more and more data was collected, many ideas were discarded.
Now we have gone from a split, to a consensus. It is working exactly like science should, data is collected, tested, Theories get refined, or di
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:They'll be happy to know the Earth is Cooling (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:They'll be happy to know the Earth is Cooling (Score:5, Insightful)
Consensus != science...and even if it were, it's hardly as universal as Algore and his Grünsturmabteilung would have you believe.
Re:They'll be happy to know the Earth is Cooling (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
He never claimed it was, you made that strawman. What the GP DID claim was that if you are in a position where you are unable to comprehend the actual science ( as most people probably are ) then it is more rational to trust a vast majority of climate scientists, peer reviewed articles in scientific journals, and our national institutions, than Joe Blogger making a random claim without backing it up at all.
With regards to how large the consensus about global warming is... well, all s
Re:They'll be happy to know the Earth is Cooling (Score:5, Informative)
Here's the Hadley Center's global temperature record [uea.ac.uk]. Each of the past 6 years of decreasing solar activity, the waning side of solar cycle 23, have been in the hottest 8 on the 158 year record.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Bullshit. Global warming is happening. The facts (i.e. temperature readings) show it is. The question is whether the warming is normal, man-made or some combination of both. No, the melted ice caps have not reformed. Take a look at Kilimanjaro, Greenland and the fact there may be a Northwest Passage through the polar ice.
2) If drilling were allowed in Alaska and other
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Huh? You are saying that because it hasn't been proven, then it isn't true. That's just stupid. Even the "global warming sceptics" have a consensus that the average temperature is increasing. I get handed radical right stuff by coworkers all the time, and I actually manage to read more of it than they do. Most global warming nay-sayers are really nay-saying the contribution b
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)