Melting glaciers and ice sheets are releasing cancer-causing pollutants into the air and oceans, scientists say. The long-lasting chemicals get into the food chain and build up in people’s bodies – triggering tumours, heart disease and infertility. The warning comes in new international study into the links between climate change and a class of man-made toxins called persistent organic pollutants.
[…]
‘In the past pollutants have travelled long distances and become trapped in ice in glaciers and ice sheets. But as the ice melts, or when temperatures go up, they are released back into the seas and atmosphere.‘It doesn’t matter whether you live in Kenya or Britain, the food goes everywhere around the world.’
The U.N.’s Cancun conference on global warming ended Friday with an agreement to spend $100 billion, although not everyone was happy.
Meanwhile, Bolivia was the most vocal opponent of the draft passed Friday, with chief negotiator Pablo Solon saying the carbon reduction targets fell short, the reports said.
“This is tantamount to making us responsible for a situation my president has described as genocide and ecocide,” Solon said.
Ecocide. Today’s Word of the Day!
Like I said, we will see what happens. I think that AGW campaign will go the way of the Global Cooling scare of the 70s. “The world’s climatologists are agreed” that we must “prepare for the next ice age”… yeah right.
Does any of this sound familiar?:
In the 1970s, “a major cooling of the planet” was “widely considered inevitable” because it was “well established” that the Northern Hemisphere’s climate “has been getting cooler since about 1950” (New York Times, May 21, 1975). Although some disputed that the “cooling trend” could result in “a return to another ice age” (the Times, Sept. 14, 1975), others anticipated “a full-blown 10,000-year ice age” involving “extensive Northern Hemisphere glaciation” (Science News, March 1, 1975, and Science magazine, Dec. 10, 1976, respectively). The “continued rapid cooling of the Earth” (Global Ecology, 1971) meant that “a new ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and misery” (International Wildlife, July 1975). “The world’s climatologists are agreed” that we must “prepare for the next ice age” (Science Digest, February 1973). Because of “ominous signs” that “the Earth’s climate seems to be cooling down,” meteorologists were “almost unanimous” that “the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century,” perhaps triggering catastrophic famines (Newsweek cover story, “The Cooling World,” April 28, 1975). Armadillos were fleeing south from Nebraska, heat-seeking snails were retreating from Central European forests, the North Atlantic was “cooling down about as fast as an ocean can cool,” glaciers had “begun to advance” and “growing seasons in England and Scandinavia are getting shorter” (Christian Science Monitor, Aug. 27, 1974).
I find some of your arguments off point, irrelevant, and silly as well in my analysis… So at least we can agree on that point about each other. Get ready though.. the biodiversity debate is coming up in the lamestream media soon. See ya in the forums!
And yes, Eggnog and Brandy are good.. Sometimes I use Crown Royal.
Crown Royal in a mixed drink? Too high on the hog for me, but to each his own.
Well, let’s take the argument you lay down. You don’t expressly state what it is, but I infer that because an earlier climate prediction was “wrong” that that thows doubt on the current climate prediction?
Is that your point before we proceed?
If so, doesn’t science proceed by correcting its errors? Its only religion that states a belief and thereafter does not change it.
Further, is proof that one theory is wrong proof or denial of any other theory?
Off point, irrelevant, or silly? Or what in good faith should your logical fallacy be called?