Global warming skeptics send letter to Congress urging members not

wyly · February 17, 2011

You've not been paying attention to any of my posts in any of these CO2 threads have you? It's been my position from the start to combat toxic pollutions which Waldo even agrees with (although he won't admit it at all, because one of his other posts ends up saying exactly what I am saying. So expect more flippant comments. If combatic toxic emissions results in a side effect of reducing CO2, then what is the problem? The focus? We are all focusing on putting less garbage into the environment. Is that not a worthy goal? Is that not something we should be doing? Why just the focus on this one little tiny insignificat item?

You got a garbage patch in the ocean the size of twice the land mass of Texas. This does not concern you at all? Marine life and microbes end up feeding on this garbage that is in the ocean. I bet they get a good dose of nutirents from that. This is an IMMEDIATE threat to the oceans, but we are focues on something that may happen down the road. It's simply astonishing when I hear people only talk about CO2. Every single one who is on the CO2 bandwagon is blind and cannot see, or not willing to see a bigger picture here. Plastics in the oceans, in our garbage, GMO foods with terminator seeds, and the chemicals needed for farming, carbon monoxide which is not good for anyone.

The scale and scope of how we have collectively FUCKED this planet 20 ways from Sunday, is mind boggling. It's pathetic. So if you want to delude yourself and conintue on just trying to combat CO2, then you are surely screwed. I'll fix the rest of the issues, while you and the rest of the 'whatever term of convenience you are using to call it today', climat change, no global warming, no man-made global warming....no wait climate change .. cause guess what .. climate DOES change. No matter what we do.

I've being paying attention to how you deny AGW and continually attempt to direct threads concerning AGW/CC to "other pollutants"...regardless of the evidence presented you fall back to idiotic denier fall backs "it used to called GW and and now it's CC"...your a denier equal to those who would deny the holocaust, completely irrational in the face of all evidence contrary to your position, your probably the worst type of denier you pretend to be objective but have already decided your own ill informed truth...you lack completely objectivity and scientific knowledge and live in the fantasy world of conspiracy theorists...

waldo · February 17, 2011

You've not been paying attention to any of my posts in any of these CO2 threads have you? It's been my position from the start to combat toxic pollutions which Waldo even agrees with (although he won't admit it at all, because one of his other posts ends up saying exactly what I am saying.

yes, we get it... ad nauseum... you're the pollution guy! The pollution guy who can't see the, 'forest for the trees'. Whatever you think I've written in the past, I've most certainly not offered consideration to negate and/or "downplay" the need for continued and extended efforts to, as you say, "combat toxic pollutions"... other than in the context of myopic types, like yourself, who can't grasp the basic, fundamental concept that, "winning small focused pollution battles" will be entirely offset by losing the, "war against the need to reduce fossil-fuel emissions". Of course, you and I also disagree over considerations of CO2 as a pollutant - a discussion point well traveled in other MLW climate change related threads.

You got a garbage patch in the ocean the size of twice the land mass of Texas.

This is now twice in recent days you've made this reference... not to downplay the significance of what actually exists, I suggest you check your hyperbole. Of course, this is a perfect case in point of you missing the big picture... not sure why you would express concerns over plastic ocean pollution at the expense of ignoring the significance of anthropogenic CO2 sourced ocean acidification. Are you really that hypocritical to continue to parlay your concern troll position as a crusading plastics ocean pollution avenger, while ignoring the devastating impacts of acidification on marine life and related consequences. Are you truly that myopic, that insular?

The scale and scope of how we have collectively FUCKED this planet 20 ways from Sunday, is mind boggling. It's pathetic. So if you want to delude yourself and conintue on just trying to combat CO2, then you are surely screwed. I'll fix the rest of the issues, while you and the rest of the 'whatever term of convenience you are using to call it today', climat change, no global warming, no man-made global warming....no wait climate change .. cause guess what .. climate DOES change. No matter what we do.

I doubt I can respond to this any better than wyly just did... other than to highlight you truly are a denier fronted by a shiny pollution diverting, concern troll wrapper.

waldo · February 17, 2011

Ghosthacked, read a book titled "Red Hot Lies" by Christopher Horner. This book explains how powerful the alarmist lobby really is, and how they have have manipulated the media and politicians, among many others. You'll enjoy it.
I'll make note of it and look for it this week, thanks for the tip.

hey lukin... did you finally finish the book - must have been a real page-turner... but, then again, appreciating your comprehension difficulties, I can understand how it would take you 5-6 months to actually read a book, even a juvenile denier effort written with crayons! :lol: About that "ta da" throw down... did you enjoy those books I recommended to you?

Another great book for people to read exposing The AGW fraud is "Red Hot Lies" by Christopher C. Horner. Greenpeace refers to Horner as a climate criminal. This book is all about how global warming alarmists use threats, fraud, and deception to keep you misinformed.
I'm sure waldo will slam this book even though he hasn't read a single page. He'll prowl the internet looking for quotes from doompreachers who feel threatened by the truth.

well done lukin... along with your most recent favoured citations of the writings of disreputable British tabloid denier "journalists", without the slightest reservation, in this, your latest "ta da", you now offer up something from a lawyer/senior fellow of the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI). That's all anyone really needs to know about your cited source/book.

your repeated pattern has been to throw down links with a pronounced "ta da". Of course you rarely (never?) actually quote from your sourced "gems"... or presume to leverage them with meaningful commentary/extension. For you it's simply a 'fait de compli' to drop a source link to any denier tripe. I wouldn't waste the energy looking for a critical review of your latest "ta da" - Horner is well known, prominently on display and often critically written about... he's the darling interviewee of such "luminaries" as Alex Jones and Glenn Beck - your kind of denier!

of course, for once, you could actually have the courage of your convictions by supporting your denier sourced link with actual detail... something that could be discussed/challenged - you know, go beyond simply dropping a link and pronouncing "ta da". Or perhaps we could have a "ta da" throw down: (1) Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming (Oreskes, Conway); (2) Doubt is Their Product: How Industry's Assault on Science Threatens Your Health (Michaels) - ta da!

waldo · February 17, 2011

Following on JBG's posting on the arctic ice expanding......I think it deserves as much coverage as when it's decreasing - an increase of two million sq. Km. - and still expanding - is pretty good news.
Link: http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2008/02/15/arctic-ice.html

and all the dumbasses climb on board the false trumped up denier claims that Arctic sea ice is increasing! If the linked article's references are correct... it represents a grand total of less than a 2 week interval since the January reports were released in the early days of February... notwithstanding it's "first year ice", subject to, per norm, a significant likelihood of typical summer melt. Example January, 2011 reports: Arctic Oscillation brings record low January extent, unusual mid-latitude weather

Arctic sea ice extent for January 2011 was the lowest in the satellite record for that month.
Arctic sea ice extent averaged over January 2011 was 13.55 million square kilometers (5.23 million square miles). This was the lowest January ice extent recorded since satellite records began in 1979. It was 50,000 square kilometers (19,300 square miles) below the record low of 13.60 million square kilometers (5.25 million square miles), set in 2006, and 1.27 million square kilometers (490,000 square miles) below the 1979 to 2000 average.

let's reinforce those post-1979, declining Arctic sea ice extent and volume trends - hey?

- from the NSIDC (National Snow & Ice Data Center): Average Monthly Arctic Sea Ice Extent - 1979 to 2010 => a linear trend of 6.2% loss per decade. Of course, we've repeatedly covered this off in several previous MLW thread references... as significant as the extent trend loss is, extent loss doesn't really reflect upon the real issue of the loss of multi-year loss; i.e., the loss of the thickest older ice that builds up over many years. A significant part of the current remaining ice extent is single year ice, that which grows and melts year-to-year... the longer-term warming trend has significantly melted the multi-year ice, which is truly reflected in a look at the actual ice volume
- from the Polar Science Center: Arctic Sea Ice Anomaly & Trend => Monthly average Arctic Ice Volume for Sept 2010 was 4,000 km^3, the lowest over the 1979-2010 period, 78% below the 1979 maximum and 9,400 km^3 or 70% below its mean for the 1979-2009 period. Shaded areas represent one and two standard deviations of the anomaly from the trend

waldo · February 17, 2011

As for some facts about the Arctic:
The Arctic during the early Holocene was warmer and had less ice cover than the present. Also, Arctic summer temperatures during the last Interglacial period were 4 to 8 degress C warmer than the present.

hey skippy... care to offer up a citation... c'mon, let us in on one of your favoured denier sites/references. Of course, equally, don't hesitate to actually offer the significance of your so-called facts... you know, actually step up and offer comment on what relation/association this has to today's situation, today's climate change, today's declining Arctic sea ice extent/volume, hey? C'mon skippy, go for it!

waldo · February 17, 2011

Indeed. I recall when the big environmental causes were deforestation, species extinction, garbage and pollution, etc. All those problems still exist, are bigger than ever, but have been all but forgotten and ignored while the focus has shifted to global warming. I think those issues are far more serious and urgent.

all but forgotten? Really? Let's just address one of your references, deforestation... re: Cancun COP16 agreements concerning land use and deforestation... perhaps you might like to comment on this press release from the UN-REDD Programme (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD)):

The UN-REDD Programme, a collaborative initiative of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN (FAO), the UN Development Programme (UNDP) and the UN Environment Programme (UNEP), commends the great effort and political will shown at the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change 16th Conference of the Parties (UNFCCC COP16) in Cancun, Mexico, which has resulted in an agreement on Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation and enhancement of forest carbon stocks in developing countries (REDD+).
.

.

Tropical forests store more than half of all carbon found in terrestrial vegetation worldwide and contain at least two thirds of the world’s terrestrial biodiversity, making REDD+ a critical component in the global fight against climate change.

The COP16 agreement on REDD+ is expected to revitalize and increase funding flows to support REDD+ readiness and invigorate donor pledges for REDD+ that now amount to close to US$5 billion for early actions until 2012.

"REDD+ means that farmers and rural people in developing countries can now be compensated for the climate services they provide for us all, helping us to avoid dangerous climate change. We will need investments in sustainable agriculture both to reduce pressure on forest land and, primarily, to secure food for everyone.

wyly · February 17, 2011

and all the dumbasses climb on board the false trumped up denier claims that Arctic sea ice is increasing! If the linked article's references are correct... it represents a grand total of less than a 2 week interval since the January reports were released in the early days of February... notwithstanding it's "first year ice", subject to, per norm, a significant likelihood of typical summer melt. Example January, 2011 reports: Arctic Oscillation brings record low January extent, unusual mid-latitude weather

and that arctic sea ice coverage doesn't reach it's maximum until March(minimum september)so it should be increasing, but even that doesn't negate that freeze up was late...

lukin · February 18, 2011

I'll make note of it and look for it this week, thanks for the tip.

Ghosthacked, here's some interesting video with the author I mentioned. A NUMBER of great points are made.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DW-pMcf6WX8&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oTvFdODo4WI&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kZD_w128JIM&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yx18BEEUl2I&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r2jP4lMnc28&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f6tlMQWlRuw&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4gSIOOdGcE&feature=related

And finally an interesting piece from John Stossel.

Man made climate change=scam of the century.

Bonam · February 18, 2011

you've invented a new denier tactic all on your own..."when unable find scientific evidence to support your denial change the subject and deflect to generalized pollution"...

It's not a denier tactic, and it's not "generalized pollution", it's very specific environmental concerns. It's a simple matter of priorities. While I agree with the science behind CO2's effects on climate change, I find other environmental issues far more concerning and more immediate.

Have you seen the vast swathes of destruction cut across ancient forests to produce lumber and paper? That is a real environmental issue, we are eradicating the habitats of countless species, many of which we don't even know exist (scientists believe we have only observed a fraction of the species that exist on Earth). Not to mention we are destroying the natural beauty of these pristine landscapes. This used to be in the media all the time in the 90s, and I remember personally caring about it. The pace of deforestation has hardly slowed since than, and yet we hear about it only rarely. The pace of species extinction is faster than ever, and yet it also is rarely mentioned in the media now. When species are lost they are gone forever, that is a true loss. Look at a satellite photo of the Amazon rainforest, that is what is truly saddening and what should concern us.

And yet this is all hardly talked about now. The environmentalist movement used to have room to talk about all these topics, to raise awareness about them, etc. Nowadays, however, I can't remember the last time any of these were mentioned in the media; it's just global warming, climate change, over and over and over again. And yet, climate change is something we have a century to deal with, while species are perishing every day, the Earth's biodiversity is dwindling, watersheds are contaminated with chemicals, forests are turned into deserts and garbage dumps, etc.

Bonam · February 18, 2011

all but forgotten? Really? Let's just address one of your references, deforestation... re: Cancun COP16 agreements concerning land use and deforestation... perhaps you might like to comment on this press release from the UN-REDD Programme (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD)):

Of course there are still reports on it, obviously. I am talking about the extent to which it is mentioned in the media and the extent to which public awareness of it exists. It used to be very prominent, but is no longer.

GostHacked · February 18, 2011

I've being paying attention to how you deny AGW and continually attempt to direct threads concerning AGW/CC to "other pollutants"...regardless of the evidence presented you fall back to idiotic denier fall backs "it used to called GW and and now it's CC"...your a denier equal to those who would deny the holocaust, completely irrational in the face of all evidence contrary to your position, your probably the worst type of denier you pretend to be objective but have already decided your own ill informed truth...you lack completely objectivity and scientific knowledge and live in the fantasy world of conspiracy theorists...

I lived in Sudbury Ont. for most of my life. I know first hand what toxic pollution does to an area and environment. There is a reason the INCO stack is so high. It had to send the polluion higher into the air to dissipate it better. It was killing vegitation in the immediate surroundings. I don't need to look at the science of shit when I see with my own eyes what happens with toxic industrial pollution. Only a complete FOOL would be able to ignore that fact when it comes to Sudbury.

http://stateofthenation.ca/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/nickeltailingssudbury.jpg

http://previous.aeroplastics.net/2004_dreamscapes/BURTYNSKY/Nickel_Tailings_32.jpg

http://www.ecivilnet.com/images/art_Inco_Superstack.jpg

http://www.dominionpaper.ca/files/dominion-img/INCO.preview.jpg

You can't do this shit forever expecting the surrounding environment to be OK.

Ever get a good dose of sulphur dioxide?? I have.... to numerous to count. That will have long term effects on my health. I can bet on it.

Edited February 18, 2011 by GostHacked

waldo · February 18, 2011

Have you seen the vast swathes of destruction cut across ancient forests to produce lumber and paper? That is a real environmental issue, we are eradicating the habitats of countless species, many of which we don't even know exist (scientists believe we have only observed a fraction of the species that exist on Earth). Not to mention we are destroying the natural beauty of these pristine landscapes. This used to be in the media all the time in the 90s, and I remember personally caring about it. The pace of deforestation has hardly slowed since than, and yet we hear about it only rarely. The pace of species extinction is faster than ever, and yet it also is rarely mentioned in the media now. When species are lost they are gone forever, that is a true loss. Look at a satellite photo of the Amazon rainforest, that is what is truly saddening and what should concern us.

you've certainly seen pine-beetle devastation... attributed to warmer winters. That's been given significant media coverage in recent years.

if there is any shift in media attention/emphasis... climate change versus 'other' environmental concerns... highlighting climate change is most certainly warranted. Keeping with your Amazon rainforest reference... Extreme weather events - Amazon droughts and climate change:

New research shows that the 2010 Amazon drought may have been even more devastating to the region’s rainforests than the unusual 2005 drought, which was previously billed as a one-in-100 year event.
Analyses of rainfall across 5.3 million square kilometres of Amazonia during the 2010 dry season, published in Science, shows that the drought was more widespread and severe than in 2005.

The UK-Brazilian team also calculate that the carbon impact of the 2010 drought may eventually exceed the 5 billion tonnes of CO2 released following the 2005 event, as severe droughts kill rainforest trees. For context, the United States emitted 5.4 billion tonnes of CO2 from fossil fuel use in 2009.

The authors suggest that if extreme droughts like these become more frequent, the days of the Amazon rainforest acting as a natural buffer to man-made carbon emissions may be numbered.

.

.

Some global climate models suggest that Amazon droughts like these will become more frequent in future as a result of greenhouse gas emissions.

Dr Lewis added: "Two unusual and extreme droughts occurring within a decade may largely offset the carbon absorbed by intact Amazon forests during that time. If events like this happen more often, the Amazon rainforest would reach a point where it shifts from being a valuable carbon sink slowing climate change, to a major source of greenhouse gasses that could speed it up.

"Considerable uncertainty remains surrounding the impacts of climate change on the Amazon. This new research adds to a body of evidence suggesting that severe droughts will become more frequent leading to important consequences for Amazonian forests.

"If greenhouse gas emissions contribute to Amazon droughts that in turn cause forests to release carbon, this feedback loop would be extremely concerning. Put more starkly, current emissions pathways risk playing Russian roulette with the world's largest rainforest."

GostHacked · February 18, 2011

yes, we get it... ad nauseum... you're the pollution guy! The pollution guy who can't see the, 'forest for the trees'. Whatever you think I've written in the past, I've most certainly not offered consideration to negate and/or "downplay" the need for continued and extended efforts to, as you say, "combat toxic pollutions"... other than in the context of myopic types, like yourself, who can't grasp the basic, fundamental concept that, "winning small focused pollution battles" will be entirely offset by losing the, "war against the need to reduce fossil-fuel emissions". Of course, you and I also disagree over considerations of CO2 as a pollutant - a discussion point well traveled in other MLW climate change related threads.

Eventhough you agree with me on toxic pollution you still chose to bash me on every turn.

This is now twice in recent days you've made this reference... not to downplay the significance of what actually exists,

Then DON'T downplay it. Address it.

I suggest you check your hyperbole. Of course, this is a perfect case in point of you missing the big picture...

I am seeing more of the big picture than you are, focusing on just CO2. I am 100% confident in that.

not sure why you would express concerns over plastic ocean pollution at the expense of ignoring the significance of anthropogenic CO2 sourced ocean acidification.

Ignorance is bliss I guess.

Are you really that hypocritical to continue to parlay your concern troll position as a crusading plastics ocean pollution avenger, while ignoring the devastating impacts of acidification on marine life and related consequences. Are you truly that myopic, that insular?

While I have talked about more different types of pollution having more immediate threats to the environment than you, who really is myopic here? And I will only say 'fuck you' once for calling me a troll. I've been holding off on that for some time, but I want to let you know how I really feel.

I doubt I can respond to this any better than wyly just did... other than to highlight you truly are a denier fronted by a shiny pollution diverting, concern troll wrapper.

Both you and wyly have your heads up your asses or buried so far in the sand than you don't see anything else but the CO2 threat.

I'll side with Bonam on this issue, there are much more immediate concerns we need to address. And that WILL take care of your so called CO2 threat. I have not changed my 'troll' position. I know what the deal is here.

Edited February 18, 2011 by GostHacked

waldo · February 18, 2011

I lived in Sudbury Ont. for most of my life. I know first hand what toxic pollution does to an area and environment. There is a reason the INCO stack is so high. It had to send the polluion higher into the air to dissipate it better. It was killing vegitation in the immediate surroundings. I don't need to look at the science of shit when I see with my own eyes what happens with toxic industrial pollution. Only a complete FOOL would be able to ignore that fact when it comes to Sudbury.

http://stateofthenation.ca/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/nickeltailingssudbury.jpg

http://previous.aeroplastics.net/2004_dreamscapes/BURTYNSKY/Nickel_Tailings_32.jpg

http://www.ecivilnet.com/images/art_Inco_Superstack.jpg

http://www.dominionpaper.ca/files/dominion-img/INCO.preview.jpg

You can't do this shit forever expecting the surrounding environment to be OK.

Ever get a good dose of sulphur dioxide?? I have.... to numerous to count. That will have long term effects on my health. I can bet on it.

bully! As I said, you truly miss the big picture... it's bloody amazing you would accept the science/scientists behind combating 'toxic pollution', while at the same time denying the consensus science in regards AGW. In-cred-i-ble!

GostHacked · February 18, 2011

bully! As I said, you truly miss the big picture... it's bloody amazing you would accept the science/scientists behind combating 'toxic pollution', while at the same time denying the consensus science in regards AGW. In-cred-i-ble!

You truly are an idiot. I am going to Sudbury next week. I can buy you a plane ticket and show you around. I am 100% sure you will change your tune after that.

waldo · February 18, 2011

I am seeing more of the big picture than you are, focusing on just CO2. I am 100% confident in that.

you're deluded... riddle me this - you've stated it many times over; you've just done it again. Care to explain exactly how targeting, oh... say... pick one... ya, say... sulfur dioxide... how that's going to result in the required world-wide stabilizing CO2 emission reductions, notwithstanding related mitigation, adaptation, prevention policies relative to world-wide agreements, hey?

GostHacked · February 18, 2011

you're deluded... riddle me this - you've stated it many times over; you've just done it again. Care to explain exactly how targeting, oh... say... pick one... ya, say... sulfur dioxide... how that's going to result in the required world-wide stabilizing CO2 emission reductions, notwithstanding related mitigation, adaptation, prevention policies relative to world-wide agreements, hey?

Again, this is just ONE part that needs to be solved. I keep pointing out other toxic emissions and you agree with me, which you cannot deny. There are many forms of toxic pollution we need to address. In my replies to most of these global warming threads, I have indicated just that. So again, if you want to be ignorant, not my problem.

waldo · February 18, 2011

you're deluded... riddle me this - you've stated it many times over; you've just done it again. Care to explain exactly how targeting, oh... say... pick one... ya, say... sulfur dioxide... how that's going to result in the required world-wide stabilizing CO2 emission reductions, notwithstanding related mitigation, adaptation, prevention policies relative to world-wide agreements, hey?
Again, this is just ONE part that needs to be solved. I keep pointing out other toxic emissions and you agree with me, which you cannot deny. There are many forms of toxic pollution we need to address. In my replies to most of these global warming threads, I have indicated just that. So again, if you want to be ignorant, not my problem.

nice back-peddle when you're actually challenged to put up... yours has been the consistent drumbeat... you've continually stated that taking care of "toxic pollution" will indirectly take care of required CO2 emission reductions. Is there a problem, is there a reason you can't express exactly how your miraculous two-pronged solution strategy will be realized?

GostHacked · February 18, 2011

nice back-peddle when you're actually challenged to put up... yours has been the consistent drumbeat... you've continually stated that taking care of "toxic pollution" will indirectly take care of required CO2 emission reductions. Is there a problem, is there a reason you can't express exactly how your miraculous two-pronged solution strategy will be realized?

I am not back peddling, I am reinforcing my position.

waldo · February 18, 2011

I am not back peddling, I am reinforcing my position.

:lol: I see... so your reinforced position is that you can't actually support your bluster and bombastic claims - no problem. Accordingly, I trust this will be the last time you trot out your baseless, without foundation, unsubstantiated claims that simply combating 'toxic pollution' will address any required CO2 emission reduction strategies, inclusive of associated impacting requirements related to adaptation, mitigation, prevention, etc.

WIP · February 19, 2011

You've not been paying attention to any of my posts in any of these CO2 threads have you? It's been my position from the start to combat toxic pollutions which Waldo even agrees with (although he won't admit it at all, because one of his other posts ends up saying exactly what I am saying.

If I might jump in here; the reason why I find your air pollution/CO2 equivalency argument invalid is because you've never addressed the point that reducing air pollution is actually a contributing factor to global warming, and may be the significant factor why global temperatures did not rise as quickly from 1940 to 1975 as they have since 1975, when emission standards were applied to automobiles and factories. I'm not making an argument in favour of air pollution! But, the simple fact that clearer skies has allowed more sunlight to be absorbed and melt polar ice caps etc., is a clear example of how, on balance, rising carbon dioxide levels is a much more serious problem than the effects of local air pollution.

wyly · February 20, 2011

I lived in Sudbury Ont. for most of my life. I know first hand what toxic pollution does to an area and environment. There is a reason the INCO stack is so high. It had to send the polluion higher into the air to dissipate it better. It was killing vegitation in the immediate surroundings. I don't need to look at the science of shit when I see with my own eyes what happens with toxic industrial pollution. Only a complete FOOL would be able to ignore that fact when it comes to Sudbury.

http://stateofthenation.ca/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/nickeltailingssudbury.jpg

http://previous.aeroplastics.net/2004_dreamscapes/BURTYNSKY/Nickel_Tailings_32.jpg

http://www.ecivilnet.com/images/art_Inco_Superstack.jpg

http://www.dominionpaper.ca/files/dominion-img/INCO.preview.jpg

You can't do this shit forever expecting the surrounding environment to be OK.

Ever get a good dose of sulphur dioxide?? I have.... to numerous to count. That will have long term effects on my health. I can bet on it.

sudbury compared to the earth would be the equivalent of a bacteria in a zit on an elephants arse...

your approach would be like an MD ignoring a patients spreading melanoma and focusing on his ingrown toenail

WIP · February 20, 2011

sudbury compared to the earth would be the equivalent of a bacteria in a zit on an elephants arse...

your approach would be like an MD ignoring a patients spreading melanoma and focusing on his ingrown toenail

Exactly! This is a problem of scale. When my cousins were still living in Subbury 20 to 25 years ago, they used to complain that it was like living on the Moon; but that pales in comparison to the kind of global disaster we are heading in to by the intensifying greenhouse effect.

wyly · February 20, 2011

Exactly! This is a problem of scale. When my cousins were still living in Subbury 20 to 25 years ago, they used to complain that it was like living on the Moon; but that pales in comparison to the kind of global disaster we are heading in to by the intensifying greenhouse effect.

moon is exactly what I thought the first time I went through sudbury back in '67...

lukin · February 22, 2011

University of Auckland's Chris de Freitas said it best when describing the tactics of alarmists:

Rather than debate the issues, they attack those who disagree, usinf defamatory labels.....The fanatical name calling and personal attacks expose the strong ideological elements that drive global warming alarmist thinking. It's as if the depth of passion is overcompensation for doubt and uncertainty. Why else would environmentalists squander so much effort trying to discredit individuals and organisations who disagree?