On Dec 19, 6:37 pm, (Rifty) wrote:
ooznb wrote:
"Rifty" wrote in message
.. .
wrote:

I have
never seen the NorthWest passage and have no idea who/what/when/why
anybody would want to use it.

I suggest you find out - it's a large part of the reason why countries
like Canada, Russia and the US take the idea of melting of the polar
icecaps so seriously.

ROTFLMAO
Antarctic is is GROWING to record levels.
Arctic ice is DEJA VU from the 1930's

You have misintepreted what I said. It is clear to me that science at
this point cannot resolve the question of climate change to everyone's
satisfaction.

There is nothing that can do that, especially when it bears on policy
because whatever the science, those who perceive themselves as
disadvantaged will squeal.

The reality is that the vast majority of the world's suitably
qualified scientists are persuaded that human acitivity is having long
term and significant negative measurable impacts on the biosphere. No
rival group of scientists has advanced a more plausible account of the
measurable changes we are seeing that that they are largely
anthropgenic in character, and fewer still have denied the changes are
taking place.

The question here is not "is this absolute truth" because that
standard can never be met. The question here is "Is there an adequate
basis for policy in response" and there surely is.

If you ask a doctor to specify how many cigarettes you can consume
before you get lung cancer or a lethal smoking-related disease, the
doctor will not be able to give you a number, but will offer a model.
You can consult widely and there may be differences. Most will concede
that you may never get a lethal smoking-related disease. The question
is though, what should you do, given that you will very probably get
one if you live long enough and even if you do somehow avoid being
killed by it, you will certainly be less fit and more prone to other
disease.

Reason, and the best data available suggest reducing or quitting, not
because you are certain it will kill you but because at best you will
almost certainly be worse off if you don't.

We know that fossil resources are finite. We know that dependence on
crude oil is a huge economic risk, and has skewed military policy in
ways that have left everyone worse off. We know that pouring billions
of tons of pollutants into the air each year harms humans, and that
digging them up shortens many lives. We know the design of cities
around "cheap" fuels has led to urban sprawl, wasteful use of energy
(and people's time), and of course millions of road deaths and even
more road trauma. And now there are persuasive reasons for thinking
that in addition to all this -- known in the 1960s -- we may be
pushing the biosphere into a condition which will even more seriously
compromise the wellbeing and life chances of the 9 billion humans
likely to be on the planet in 2050.

It's very clear what needs to be done, and the only point of unclarity
is whether we merely save ourselves from a series of costly disasters
by acting now and get a cleaner environment while we are waiting to
see, or save ourselves from an all-consuming catastrophe.

Fran