“Jeff Alberts”, yes, I agree. I read a few years back when the hysteria was focussed on the South pole….that the main reason that a humungous berg larger than Manhatten had broken off was because the pressure from inland was so great – all due to increase of snow fall way inland….forcing the bergs to push out. But, the media all jumped on the story and claimed without a single drop of evidence that it was a sign of a warming world, when the fact was it was a sign that inland the snow had been higher.

But wait: I promise you that when this current hurricane season has blown itself out the press will publish op-eds (that’s about all they are) that will claim it is all because the earth is going over the tipping point, into the demonic grip of runaway global gore-gasses…..

Along with decimating ecosystems, drifting ice shelves and warmer temperatures that will cause further melting ice pose a hazard to populated shipping routes in the Arctic region

Arctic melt threatening Arctic shipping. Um. Come again?

Evan, you missed another low hanging fruit. IIRC, the etymology for “decimating” goes back to the Roman Empire where to reinspire troops that needed it, a commander would line them all up and kill every tenth. The remaining 90% would then put out greater than 111% effort and do better than before.

The author should have used the word “devastation.” I think decimation crept into common usage in the aftermath of Katrina as I only recall previous natural disasters(*) causing devastation.

* The failure of the New Orleans levee system means Katrina was partially an anthropogenic disaster. And the failure of people to heed the warnings means means it was a political disaster. A complete package!

BTW, the Arctic shipping reference was probably to ice bergs drifting south into shipping lanes. Think Titanic. However, that’s south of the Arctic Circle. Oh well.

Here is a study from 1986. The shelves had collapsed.
http://pubs.aina.ucalgary.ca/arctic/Arctic39-1-15.pdf

Right.

Save the Germs.

Apparently no one here has any knowledge of that.

Lot’s of opinions, but no info on the question asked.

Reply (by JG); Actually, JG asked, not AW.

Here’s my take on the Republican Climate change stance.

First off we are in a two party system. The Greens have to lump in with the Democrats and the Libertarians have to lump in with the Republicans on Presidential ellections. Ross Perot and Ralph Nader have shown us that by voting for your ideal representitive (if there is one) you can ruin the chance of the one of the two most likely to be elected. They will lose votes to someone whom has no chance of being elected.

That’s something everyone (practically everyone) knows. The republicans know (assume) they have the ultra-conservatives in their pocket. Why not then pander to the fence sitting liberals and conservatives?

Yes, it’s dirty but that’s Politics.

I envy the voters that have a candidate that is exactly what they want. Most of us have to hold our noses at the polls and pick the less stinky piece of poo.

OK, the republicans, being political critters, have yelled “Me TOO!” and have agreed to hold hands with the democrats while all of them jump off of the same cliff. I can’t imagine why this is a good thing…but it IS politics….

Since they are all products of our stellar education system, why should any of us really be supprised….

Pot…kettle…black….
Maybe.

Hell…handbasket….
Seems more timely….

Excuse me for a moment while I finish screaming and go beat my head against the wall….
[sigh]
cdl