Gastro Gnome - Eat Better Wherever

Eskimos gettin' too hot!!

I

Ithaca 37

New member
Joined
Mar 4, 2001
Messages
5,427
Location
Home of the free, Land of the brave
"ANCHORAGE, Alaska (Reuters) - Anyone who doubts the gravity of global warming should ask Alaska's Eskimo, Indian and Aleut elders about the dramatic changes to their land and the animals on which they depend.



Native leaders say that salmon are increasingly susceptible to warm-water parasites and suffer from lesions and strange behavior. Salmon and moose meat have developed odd tastes and the marrow in moose bones is weirdly runny, they say.


Arctic pack ice is disappearing, making food scarce for sea animals and causing difficulties for the Natives who hunt them. It is feared that polar bears, to name one species, may disappear from the Northern hemisphere by mid-century......"

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=572&ncid=572&e=1&u=/nm/20040416/lf_nm/environment_warming_dc


Try telling the Eskimos and polar bears global warming is a bunch of BS!!
 
If my understanding is correct, there have been some 10 recorded ice ages, I wonder if the melt off occured during those or if it just stayed there and nothing ever changed...
 
I think it's funny that people somehow think that all these scientists can be wrong. It would be like having a heart attack and then telling a doctor there's nothing wrong with your heart and you don't need an operation. :rolleyes:

What's even funnier is all the people (mostly the Rush Limbaugh fans) who think the global warming theory is some kind of government conspiracy! LOL Like the government would have anything to gain by lying about it.
 
No, they don't have any thing to gain, but all of the junk scientists that get government funding to perpetuate the potential lie keep on pounding the drums because they lose their funding when the "Impending disaster and destruction of the Earth" don't happen, how much funding is going into the Spotted Owl thing? The squeeky wheel gets greased by the $$$ of government.Keep the news media interested and spouting, and the sheeple will follow. Easy as that, I would even suspect that if the evidence was proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to the contrary, there would still be those that blindly follow that which they have devoted their lives to, to do any less would mean their lives and ideals have been based on a lie and they really don't have the energy or want to accept it.
 
Elkchsr, pull into reality...

We arent talking about one or two junk scientists believing that global warming is happening.

I've read a lot of information on this, and I'd say, its more likely than not, happening and real. I dont believe theres any debate about that.

The thing I'm not sure of, is just how it will effect things, kind of hard to predict. But, my theory is, until I see some damn convincing evidence to the contrary, dont take chances and do what you can to slow it down or prevent it.
 
My understanding is It's NOT happening. that watching the Area of OZONE that was once thought t be deminishing is a Mobil one and thins and thickens over time.

It's jsut like the Books about how the Avverage Earth tempature is Slowly rising.. then we have several Record Low summer days back to back in places every year. Grant it, there are some record HIGHS too... But I think the History of things are a bit young to give it one way or the next.

I think it was RAIN hairspray that put "NET" hairspray out of Busness because of the Global warning scare. It's jsut like the Welfare Rancher. One company or organization saying one thing to put out the Next competator ;)
 
I was watching a thing on the Discovery channel about a month ago about the last ice age. The one thing that struck me odd, is that it lasted for some few thousand years but some thing triggered it to start in the beginning and with in 35 years it was supposed to have went from sub tropical in a lot of regions (the scientists figure this out thru fossil records) to covering half of the North American Continent.
The one reason I stay very skeptical on this subject is because the earth does go thru climactic cycles all of the time, some are actually pretty fast as the history compared to geology goes. There have been quite a few of 'Earth Devastating' changes that have happened on this ball of mud, heck it is a few billion years old, there are lots of things that can happen in that amount of time, and for us to think that man can make such a huge and devastating impact on the whole planet, (I'm not saying there isn't large scale damage in some places), but this planet (Mother Earth) has a way of cleansing herself and starting fresh and clean. Before you guy's jump down my pie hole by reading between the lines and taking things out of context, we do need to do some things to keep it clean, there are some things we can do to lessen the damage done by man, but there isn't much we are going to do as of yet to change the worlds weather patterns, nor what will occur on a natural cycle when the time comes. There have been way worse dry cycles recorded in time thru fossil and core sampling records than we can pretty much imagine, and as far as any one knows, it wasn’t any of mans doings... ;)
 
WH; ALL the scientists do not subscribe to the global warming theory. As a matter of fact most of the voices I hear seem to be those of liberal democrat politicians; not scientists at all. I guarantee that sufficient information simply does not exist to either prove or disprove the theory. Those who propose it to be fact are simply full of BS themselves or have deluded themselves into believing something they can not support with fact. Maybe Grandpa Nanuk was a bit colder than the current generation; however, what about fifteen generations ago? Shoot, I seem to remember that it snowed deep enough to reach my knees every year! When I was three, four, and five! :D (Keep alert, the locusts will be swarming, and that along with the runny bone marrow in the reindeer, herold the coming of the last days!) :eek:
 
Yep I think you're right elkchsr, man is going to screw up this planet no matter what, as long as the population continues to increase there isn't anything that can be done. If we could get every woman on this earth on birth control pills, now that might make a difference. Other than that I'd say it's a lost cause. And I think you're right about the earth cleansing itself, once we are gone, that process will begin, and I don't believe it will be a long time (relatively speaking) before the human species is extinct.
 
WH; so what? This may simply be a jphenomenon that recurrs ever fifteen thousand years. It proves absolutely nothing.
 
ok, well can you disagree with this:

There is no question that global warming is having pronounced effects in Alaska, said Gunter Weller, director of the University of Alaska Fairbanks' Center for Global Change and Arctic System Research
Click to expand...
I don't suppose you have done more research on global warming than Gunter Weller. Am I right?
 
Absolutely! There is no question that global warming....???? There certainly is! The whole issue of whether or not there is global warming is a question. His statement sir is a conclusion based on unsubstantiated evidence and unsupported data. The entire basis for performing an unbiased study with conclusive or at best statistically reliable results does not exist with our current knowledge. We simply do not have an effective means to sample our historical universe because the strata can not be defined because we have no way of knowing what the strata, data set, or possible range of control limits look like. If we did have that information we would still lack the knowledge of which variables are dependant and independant. In effect if we clould define reliably the term "global warming"; we still would not know whether it is caused by environmental change or the "environmental change" is caused by global warming. If both exist; they may be totally unrelated independant variables caused by other jpotentially unidentified variables. Given the state of knowledge on the subject I can not trust the judgement of anyone who makes such a conclusive statement. It is obviously designed to evoke an emotional response and probably to elicit additional funding for a pet project. (Not to mentyion jmake the car payment!)
 
Well Ithica the process ofany problem solving venture is fairly structured and begins with problem definition. First I would define the problem in quantitative terms without regard for what I believed to be true or not true. Then based on that definition I would set out a data collection and analysis effort designed to capture the most unbiased, representative data available given a set of control assumptions. Based on the results of data collection and analysis I would then formulate a set of alternative actions which would /should resolve the problem issue and enact the most feasible. The most important part of this process is the problem definition step and this is where most studies fail. This is because most researchers use a "hypothesis" rather than a problem definition. This causes the researcher to bias the study from the very beginning ond overlooks the most important aspect of the effort which is; "Why the study is needed in the first place!" If a proper problem definition can be structured and a trustworthy study conducted which determines that global warming exists and requires intervention then the causes must be identified and eliminated. If causal inference can not be proven then it must be at least substantiated by statistical measures expressing known factors of reliability. This is necessary to preclude worsening the present situation by tweaking suspected causal factors which may only appear to be involved or may in fact be beneficial to the desired problem solution. In other words; "Don't fix it if it ain't broke cause you may break it in the process!" Of course even if specific causal factors can be identified they must be amenable to change intervention or the "fix" may be impractical if not impossible. So to answer your question; I would first examine the reliability of the study process, then the determinents of cause, then if warranted intervene.
 
We sure wouldn't want to jump the gun and do something that would create a real problem since we haven't determined that one exists either! :D Besides; in responding to your question I believe I have taken more positive steps toward resolving the issue than the experts credited above! ;)
 
What are fossil fuels? The most recent research I have heard questions oil, gas, and coal as fossil fuels. The thinking at present is that these are naturally occuring rather than carbon conversions from some form of dinosaur residue. In any case the right answer to your question is; "I don't know." Nor do I know of any solutions it may provide for any environmental problems real or imagined.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
113,587
Messages
2,026,119
Members
36,239
Latest member
cprsailor

Share this page

Back
Top