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."
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...
"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: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.
They'll be happy to know the Earth is Cooling (Score:1, Informative)
So be sure to break out those "the debate is over/you're a shill/denier" nostrums [slashdot.org] to stiffle debate, boys. You're going to need them...
Re:Yes but... (Score:5, Informative)
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:nice timing (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:Erm (Score:3, Informative)
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:I'm going to sue the Sun! (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:nice timing (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/headlines/y2006/10mar_stormwarning.htm?list862664 [nasa.gov]
Re:nice timing (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.
Re:Mistargeted law suit? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Mistargeted law suit? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Erm (Score:2, Informative)
Re:It's not "mis-targetted" (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://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Permanent_Fund [wikipedia.org]
As it is, they have a 40 billion+ fund for things like this. Give back the money you so greedily took when you didn't care about the consequences, or use the money you've saved for this purpose, but don't expect us (and it WILL be us, the customer who gets the cost passed to them) to pay you off again.
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:Global Warming is bullshit (Score:2, Informative)
Re:It's not "mis-targetted" (Score:2, Informative)
Why don't you develop some respect."
Thanks, any chance you could reply to something I said, or a point I made, or just not with a total no sequitur?
Thanks in advance.
"We are living and walking around on soil that we took from Native people by force."
And THEY got it from the previous natives by force. Why don't you learn something about history before you comment on it?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dorset_culture [wikipedia.org]
"The Dorset culture preceded the Inuit culture in Arctic North America. Inuit legends mention the Tuniit (singular Tuniq) or Sivullirmiut ("First Inhabitants"), who were driven away by the Inuit. According to legend, they were "giants", people who were taller and stronger than the Inuit, but who were easily scared off and retreated from the advancing Inuit."
You're welcome.
Re:Mistargeted law suit? (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:Mistargeted law suit? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Mistargeted law suit? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Mistargeted law suit? (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 talk about it. Most of the fuel used by the coal plant gets released directly into the atmosphere, and we have to breathe it in. In large quantities the gasses released by a coal plant can be harmful--And there are numerous examples of neighborhoods around coal plants having very poor air quality.
Now lets look at the nuclear plant again; Every ounce of fuel it has ever used is contained within the plant--that spent fuel is much denser, and harmful than the gasses released by a coal plant, but the likelyhood of actually coming into such contact with it are slim to none.
Have you ever seen what they did when they tested those containment casks? They placed a trailer carrying a cask across a railway. Then they launched a rocket-train at it. The train hit the trailer at > 70 MPH. the cask was dented, but maintained containment. Then they put it and the train engine next to each other in a pool of jet fuel and let it burn for > 30 minutes. Temperatures on the outside were freakin' hot (as you'd expect) but temperatures on the inside didn't get nearly high enough to melt the spent fuel. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spent_nuclear_fuel_shipping_cask [wikipedia.org]
So, basically what I'm saying is that I don't worry about nuclear power because there is nothing to worry about. Aside from one major accident (And that in Russia) there have been no major accidents (where containment was lost) at any nuclear power station.
Re:Mistargeted law suit? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:In other news... Exxon trying to nor pay damage (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Mistargeted law suit? (Score:2, Informative)