Ground Zero

[Guthrie]

The effects of Global Warming will affect those closest to the ocean first - flooded coasts and of course, failure of millennia old technology -- like igloos

BEIJING, April 16 (Xinhuanet) -- So what do you think, will those who scoff at scientific proof global warming is harming the Earth's Arctic region listen to the people who have to live -- and die -- with its impact on their environment and culture?

Will they listen to Will Steger, a 62-year-old Minnesotan who has witnessed the effects during his 43 years of travel and living with the indigenous people of the Arctic?

"This is really ground zero for global warming," said Will Steger, speaking by satellite phone from a small Inuit village near Iqaluit about 200 miles south of the Arctic Circle. "This is where a culture has lived for 5,000 years, relying on a very delicate, interconnected ecosystem and, one by one, small pegs of that ecosystem are being pulled out."

Steger made the first journey to the North Pole by dogsled without resupply in 1986. He is now sledding with Inuit guides for three months across Baffin Island, the northeastern corner of Nunavut, with two teams of huskies and a cameraman.

He is charting his 1,200-mile adventure on his website, and making a documentary about how Inuit hunters are being forced to adapt to a warming Arctic Ocean and melting polar ice cap. In June, he will testify before a U.S. Senate committee on climate change.

Steger said hunters he meets are describing creatures they have no words for in their language, such as robins, finches and dolphins. He said hunters are falling through thinning ice and dying.

"All of these villages have lost people on the ice," Steger said. "When you have a small village of 300 or 400 people, losing three or four of their senior hunters, it's a big loss.

"A lot of the elders will no longer go out on the sea ice because their knowledge will not work anymore. What they've learned and passed on for 5,000 years is no longer functional," he continued. "They can't build igloos anymore; everything is just upside down up here."

Will they listen to Meeka Mike as she sits on the floor of her cedar house with friends while they sew a pair of caribou hunting pants she will wear on her next supply trip by snowmobile and wooden sled to Steger's expedition?

Mike says the thinning of the ice became noticeable about 10 years ago, forcing Arctic animals to migrate farther north.

"It takes longer now to get out to our hunting areas because we can't access it by ice," she explained. "The ice freezes much later and therefore it's thinner and breaks off during the full-moon tide."

Life, she says, is "very much out of sync."

"Unfortunately, you are the people who cause most of this climate change," she smiled gently and said to an American journalist.

Will they listen to a 47-year-old mother trekking on foot alone since March 6 on a 60-day journey across 475 miles of frozen ocean to reach the North Pole?

Rosie Stancer uses a compass, the sun and satellites to navigate and carries food, fuel and a shotgun to drive away polar bears on a sled she drags behind her.

If she makes it she will be the first woman to have walked solo to both Poles. She was the second woman to trek alone to the South Pole in 2004.

She is studying global warming effects for a polar research institute at Cambridge University.

"I'll be monitoring the temperatures, wind direction and comparing the ice conditions to 10 years ago," Stancer said in a telephone interview from Resolute Bay. "You know, everyone is going ooh-la-la and being indignant about our climate change. But what did they expect. Why are people surprised that this is a living, breathing planet?

"If I can come back as an ordinary person with a firsthand account, that message will hit home and awaken individual consciences about cleaning up our own back yard."

But will they listen?

Will they listen? - Yes, a majority of Americans (at least) know it's real and perhaps the single most important issue our posterity will face for a long long time.

Link

Climate scientists will tell you that global warming is real. Scientific evidence supports it and poll after poll shows that majority of Americans believe it is factual and an issue of national importance. It is such a large topic to wrap one's brain around that any action individually, collectively or governmentally tends to go neglected.

This inaction, in turn, has stirred the pot of adversity and global warming simply gets beat to death by debate or politicized to the point that people cannot differentiate between the magnitude of the problem and the figure heads that use it as propaganda.

...

[ScottSA]

The effects of Global Warming will affect those closest to the ocean first - flooded coasts and of course, failure of millennia old technology -- like igloos

I have a novel idea. If they've lived in igloos for 5000 years, isn't it time to upgrade the living habits anyway? I don't know what my ancestors were living in 5000 years ago, but I'm not interested in living in it myself.

[B. Max]

"Unfortunately, you are the people who cause most of this climate change," she smiled gently and said to an American journalist.

Of course there is no truth to that. This is just more propaganda. Doing something as they put it would mean the destruction of our economy with the end result being war. Makes these complainers complaints trivial at best. These people have been sucking millions and millions of dollars extorted from the people they blame, for a lot longer than ten years. There is about twenty four thousand of these people in the entire area with half of them that work for the phony Nunavut government and the other half on welfare. I would say it's ground zero for a useless race of people.

[Guthrie]

"Unfortunately, you are the people who cause most of this climate change," she smiled gently and said to an American journalist.

Of course there is no truth to that. This is just more propaganda. Doing something as they put it would mean the destruction of our economy with the end result being war. Makes these complainers complaints trivial at best. These people have been sucking millions and millions of dollars extorted from the people they blame, for a lot longer than ten years. There is about twenty four thousand of these people in the entire area with half of them that work for the phony Nunavut government and the other half on welfare. I would say it's ground zero for a useless race of people.

it isn't surprising to see this kind of racist remark from GW deniers -

nor is it surprising for GW deniers to make the false claim that dealing with pollution is going to destroy an economy

the first case just shows the mindset of these guys, the second shows their ignorance --

the facts are, 1) there is no such thing as a "a useless race of people" - and 2) cleaning up the environment will greatly invigorate our economy

[M.Dancer]

it isn't surprising to see this kind of racist remark from GW deniers -

Didn't you write a week or so ago that races don't exist?

[B. Max]

'Guthrie' date='Apr 16 2007, 02:17 PM' post='208530']

it isn't surprising to see this kind of racist remark from GW deniers -

nor is it surprising for GW deniers to make the false claim that dealing with pollution is going to destroy an economy

The usual nonsense from an alarmist. C02 is not pollution and destroying economies is what is all about. Just ask these people who do want to work and produce something of value that somebody actually wants but the I got mine jack crowd won't let them.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/worl...icle1655188.ece

[Guthrie]

'Guthrie' date='Apr 16 2007, 02:17 PM' post='208530']

it isn't surprising to see this kind of racist remark from GW deniers -

nor is it surprising for GW deniers to make the false claim that dealing with pollution is going to destroy an economy

The usual nonsense from an alarmist. C02 is not pollution and destroying economies is what is all about. Just ask these people who do want to work and produce something of value that somebody actually wants but the I got mine jack crowd won't let them.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/worl...icle1655188.ece

CO2 is a greenhouse gas - deniers can say anything they want but they can't change the truth

anyone who thinks that destroying the Amazon will, "produce something of value" are no different than the short sighted bad guys, in the kids story, who kill the golden goose - greedy, foolish and ultimately, causing their own downfall

[Guthrie]

it isn't surprising to see this kind of racist remark from GW deniers -

Didn't you write a week or so ago that races don't exist?

yes, and?

surely, you don't suggest that since, 'races,' don't exist that neither do, 'racists?'

fairies don't exist but fairytales do --- oops, maybe that wasn't the best example

[ScottSA]

it isn't surprising to see this kind of racist remark from GW deniers -

nor is it surprising for GW deniers to make the false claim that dealing with pollution is going to destroy an economy

Two interesting points here.

First, we have the incredibly transparent tactic of drawing an association between holocaust "denial" and "GW "denial", as if there is the slightest moral connection between the two. "Denying" that man is causing global warming simply means that someone is asking for, and not getting, reasonable evidence of manmade GW, based on more than garbageingarbageout "models" which can't even predict weather a week in advance. The imaginary association is strengthened of course by the inclusion of "racism" to the sentence, since in Woody's world only "racists" would deny GW.

Second, we have a complete muddling of the argument, as if "pollution" is synomymous with CO2. I suppose one could describe CO2 as either a pollutant or a source of nourishment for vegetation, but "dealing with pollution" is not the same thing as dealing with CO2. Love Canal wasn't cleaned up because of a surfiet of CO2. So this transparent tactic is meant to suggest that anyone who points to the economic disaster of trying to come anywhere close to Kyoto limits is really all about throwing newspapers on roads, crapping in drinking water and burning rain forest.

[B. Max]

'Guthrie' date='Apr 16 2007, 05:54 PM' post='208608']

CO2 is a greenhouse gas - deniers can say anything they want but they can't change the truth

CO2 is a tiny component of green house gases and virtually irrelevant. It never controlled temperature in the past and it is not now, nor have the alarmists proven it does. Water vapor is the main green house gas.

anyone who thinks that destroying the Amazon will, "produce something of value" are no different than the short sighted bad guys, in the kids story, who kill the golden goose - greedy, foolish and ultimately, causing their own downfall

The rain forest is not being destroyed by cutting a few trees for lumber, and infact if you cut it all down it would all grow back. If you cut non of it. The trees they now cut for lumber would die anyway and be replaced.

Only a no nothing leftist would say making a living is greed. They would rather create jobless people and poverty.

[Drea]

Have you ever seen Easter Island?

Not a tree in sight.

Used to be lots of trees.

Now they are all gone -- for millenia they have been gone and have never ever ever ever (get it?) grown back.

Logged off. Gone forever.

... trees need SEEDS or human intervention (planting seedlings) in order to replenish the forest. Nature does not clearcut, she leaves behind trees that will go to seed.

Not only that but they don't take every fifth tree, they take them ALL.

Go to google earth and zoom in on Brazil...

The rightwing nut says "Garbage also disappears completely once its covered up in a landfill ain't it. Gone. Can't see it -- it must be gone! Our earth is so greatly constructed by god that it just sucks in that garbage and turns it into compost over night! Yes! Even pampers disolve within 2 or 3 days of being in the landfill.

DUH! You lefties are soooo stupid!"

LOL

[ScottSA]

Have you ever seen Easter Island?

Not a tree in sight.

Used to be lots of trees.

Now they are all gone -- for millenia they have been gone and have never ever ever ever (get it?) grown back.

Logged off. Gone forever.

Thanks to careful Native husbandry based on oneness with the great spirit. Thank God no one gave them chainsaws a couple thousand years ago in Canada...but anyway, back to reality...Easter Island is an...ummmm...island. Once you log the trees, they are gone. Once you log parts of a rainforest, they grow back. There are more trees in North america today than there were 50 years ago, did you know that?

[B. Max]

date='Apr 17 2007, 09:45 PM' post='209173']

...

trees need SEEDS or human intervention (planting seedlings) in order to replenish the forest. Nature does not clearcut, she leaves behind trees that will go to seed.

Nonsense. Have you ever seen where a forest fire clear cut a forest and then it grew back. I have, many many times.

Not only that but they don't take every fifth tree, they take them ALL.

If they say that's what they are taking then that's what they are taking. In that type of forest I expect that would be true. Clear cutting only occurs where that is the only feasible way to log. Not only that, but those types of forest need to be logged that way. By taking some trees but not others leaves those trees vulnerable to being blown over by the wind because their root system in that type of setting will not support the tree in a wind. Thus those trees are lost anyway. Even clear cutting doesn't take every tree because not every tree is big enough to be a log.

Go to google earth and zoom in on Brazil

How do you now that's logging and not land clearing.

[M.Dancer]

date='Apr 17 2007, 09:45 PM' post='209173']

...

trees need SEEDS or human intervention (planting seedlings) in order to replenish the forest. Nature does not clearcut, she leaves behind trees that will go to seed.

Nonsense. Have you ever seen where a forest fire clear cut a forest and then it grew back. I have, many many times.

Many many times?

You're Methuselah?

[B. Max]

Many many times?

You're Methuselah?

No, you do not have to be Methuselah.

[ScottSA]

My daughter and I went on a gold-panning trip in 2001 up around Revelstoke. They were in the process of clearcutting strips (maybe it's called strip cutting instead?) of spf on the mountainsides. I went back and visited it this year, and until I got close I couldn't tell the difference between the old forest and the strip cuts. In a few years the trees will be close enough in size that they will be indistinguishable from each other. Nature heals itself fairly fast. I don't even think the strips were replanted, but I could be wrong...

[M.Dancer]

My daughter and I went on a gold-panning trip in 2001 up around Revelstoke. They were in the process of clearcutting strips (maybe it's called strip cutting instead?) of spf on the mountainsides. I went back and visited it this year, and until I got close I couldn't tell the difference between the old forest and the strip cuts. In a few years the trees will be close enough in size that they will be indistinguishable from each other. Nature heals itself fairly fast. I don't even think the strips were replanted, but I could be wrong...

generally ten way to tell is the unifomity of species...but I hear they are getting a little more sophistcated and planting a little more diversity.

[guyser]

date='Apr 17 2007, 09:45 PM' post='209173']

...

trees need SEEDS or human intervention (planting seedlings) in order to replenish the forest. Nature does not clearcut, she leaves behind trees that will go to seed.

Nonsense. Have you ever seen where a forest fire clear cut a forest and then it grew back. I have, many many times.

Some trees are "fire dependant" , meaning they need fire to release the seed. Nature does indeed clearcut.

If they say that's what they are taking then that's what they are taking. In that type of forest I expect that would be true. Clear cutting only occurs where that is the only feasible way to log.

Clear cutting until recently, was pretty much the only way to log. It was that way when I logged near Chapleau On. Acres and acres upon mile and miles of clearcut.

Not only that, but those types of forest need to be logged that way. By taking some trees but not others leaves those trees vulnerable to being blown over by the wind because their root system in that type of setting will not support the tree in a wind. Thus those trees are lost anyway. Even clear cutting doesn't take every tree because not every tree is big enough to be a log.

Pretty much every tree on the lot was knocked down, if not on purpose then by the skidders racing around on the parcels where I worked. A standing tree is a hazard , trust me , once you have been flung 30 feet (as I have), you learn of the danger.

[guyser]

My daughter and I went on a gold-panning trip in 2001 up around Revelstoke. They were in the process of clearcutting strips (maybe it's called strip cutting instead?) of spf on the mountainsides. I went back and visited it this year, and until I got close I couldn't tell the difference between the old forest and the strip cuts. In a few years the trees will be close enough in size that they will be indistinguishable from each other. Nature heals itself fairly fast. I don't even think the strips were replanted, but I could be wrong...

You sure you had ther right area? Five years, or six depending when you went is not enough time for significant growth to occur. It should appear as a wide open area, with significant undergorwth, but not trees.

A single maple tree takes 40 yrs to be useable.

[Guthrie]

when a 500 year old tree is cut, it will not truly be replaced for anothe 500 years

anybody who thinks a stand of Doug Firs is a forest, is a moron

[guyser]

anybody who thinks a stand of Doug Firs is a forest, is a moron

How so?

[ScottSA]

when a 500 year old tree is cut, it will not truly be replaced for anothe 500 years

anybody who thinks a stand of Doug Firs is a forest, is a moron

Woody woody woody...what do you propose to call a stand of douglas firs? A "firest"? Here's a braintwister that ought to keep you occupied for the rest of your life or so: Is it better to wait till a 500 year old tree burns down, releasing all it's dreaded CO2 into the atmosphere, or cut it down and keep the CO2 locked in it for another 100-200 years? Then lets move on, in your next life, to the specific attributes of 500 year old douglas firs. Is there something special about them? If so, what?