http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7984054.stm

More melting in the Antartic.

Thanks for the link. It seems wer'e on a path now with no turning back.

What path?

Sorry if I offended

:- (

You didn't offend me. I just get sick of everything going wrong in the world contributed to global warming. Every since Al Gore's movie came out, it has been getting colder in Alaska and the Arctic ice pack has been freezing up a month earlier than normal. I just read a book about the capture of Geronimo and the temperatures they report in Arizona 120 years ago are hotter than they are today.

David, I'm HONESTLY asking this, not trying to be inflammatory. I do love to sincerely research both sides of any issue. Is there a good link or book you can recommend?

What's causing Polar Bears to starve and come into conflict with Kodiaks as they move inland searching for food while their ice sheets/hunting grounds retreat? (We've all seen those images on TV but they may be out of context?)

The Eskimos are also having to give up their traditional ice-fishing and hunting areas, supposedly due to ice melt and thinning. What is actually going on that the reports may not have shared with us? (Believe me I know the media can distort anything it wants to.)

What is really causing these ice shelves to deteriorate, if in fact they are?

The earth does have cycles but humans also cause harm. What is confusing here is knowing where each one ends and the other begins.

My friend at the museum tells me we SHOULD be heading into another Ice Age but that Man's activities are slowing or stopping this natural cycle. It is an astronomy and research center, they get the global satelite images we see, as well as readings from volcanos etc., and all the correspondence from scientists around the world. So that is what I hear and have been basing my concerns on, but that may just be one side of the equation.

Where can I read about other causes and explanations from sources you trust? (Or personal observation, in your case, living in the heart of it all!)

Yes and apologies here as well. Thanks for your answers David and I will write you a little later. I'm very glad to the opportunity to learn as much as I can.

David, with all due respect you have thrown out a political response to the article which contains a defense of polluting the Earth. You are entitled to your opinion, and to be honest, I hope that you are right. I hope that we are not really messing up the only place we have to live for us and the generations to come .

So we can bet that you are right, and we can avoid any CO2 taxes or pollution restraints, and we can avoid a tax. If we lose the bet then we destroy the Earth.

Or we can bet that you are wrong, and we try to clean up after ourselves and be good stewards of the resources we have been blessed with. If we win that bet we save the Earth, and if we lose that bet then we have to pay some extra taxes but we will all be able to breathe a little better.

I like the odds and payoff of the second bet better.

The article I linked to was about Antartica. While the stats on Arizona are interesting, the ice all melted there a long time ago.

I miss the point about the polar bears and the Marine Mammal Act. I thought that was about not harvesting Polar Bears. Don't hunt them from helicopters or use certain inhumane traps and weapons on them. We sort of did to polar bears what we did to the buffalo herds. I think it is a good thing that we will no longer allow ourselves to kill them all for fur and sport.

Humans cause minor harm. Well, I hope we can agree to disagree about this. I don't think its okay to extinquish whole species of animals. I think the elephants, tigers, and panda bears would agree with me. Spend a few weeks in Lenfen, China. Or, save your lungs and watch a documentary: http://www.vbs.tv/video.php?id=1711762029 If one watches this film and still wants to argue this is a good thing, then OK...we will have to agree to disagree.

The 1962 Corvair purchased for $2,000 would cost $14,052 today simply adjusted for inflaction

http://www.coinnews.net/tools/cpi-inflation-calculator/

Todays HHR includes at least $6,000 worth of extras in my opinion. For instance, the Corvair is arguably "Unsafe at Any Speed", whereas the HHR has a few extra features like:

Dual Stage Front Airbags,
Head curtain side impact airbags,
Seatbelts,
Electronic Traction Control,
Stabilitrack Stability control system
a 5 star safety rating
a 4 star rollover rating
a steering wheel that will not impale you in a light crash

and

air conditioning
cruise control
an anti theft system
a rear window defogger
one year of OnStar
a six speaker sound system
XM Radio

Well...I'll take the clean air, and I'd prefer the $20,000 HHR over the $14,000 Corvair.

NOTE: The Corvair did get a bad rap from Ralph Nadar's book in the first chapter, it was probably about as safe as many of the other cars of the time.

Back to Antartica, the temperature change does not appear to be 'normal'

http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs17-02/fs017-02.html

The point of the Polar Bears is as follows. In 1972 they were placed on the Marine Mammal Protection act so that only Alaskan Natives could hunt them. In 1972 there were 9000 Polar Bears. Now , today there are 25,000 Polar Bears and we just put them on the endangered species act so they don't go extinct with the melting of the Polar Ice cap up here. Now an increase of 16,000 Polar Bears to me doesn't mean they are endangered. The melting of the Polar Ice cap is NOT happening. I know. I live up here and see it. My neighbors work on the North Slope and see the ice cap. It is not melting, but in fact is freezing up about a month earlier than it has in the past. Our summers are the coldest we have had in the past 30 years. There is not global warming in Alaska and since it is not warming here, then it can't be GLOBAL but maybe regional. A good way to show you that we don't have global warming in Alaska is to look at the volcano that is erupting here. Two weeks ago, it MELTED the entire Drift Glacier because of the volume of steam and ash that was being emitted. Now that in itself doesn't say much about global warming. What you have to realize is that Mt. Redoubt erupted in 1989-1990 over a 4 month period of time and melted the Drift Glacier back then. If we have "global warming", then how was that glacier rebuilt in a 20 year period? We are coming up on "Earth Day" to "save the earth from global warming because of Greenhouse gasses". Look up the history of "Earth Day". In 1972 we had "Earth Day" to save the planet from the next ice age caused by .... greenhouse gasses. We can't even predict the weather with any kind of accuarcey, how do we expect to save the planet when everything the government has ever tried to fix it makes worse?

Lets say that you are right and I am wrong and there is global warming. For us to fix the problem we would have to learn to control the weather so that we can reverse the damage that is being done. You say that you would be willing to pay the carbon monoxide tax. Just what would this accomplish besides making you poorer and the government richer? Do they know how to control the weather? If they do and with all the resources the government already has, why do they need that tax? If they do know how to control the weather, why don't they just do it? We can't even accuartely predict the weather. So what makes you think the government would be able to control the weather to fix this problem? Besides controlling the weather, we would also need to learn how to avert natural disasers to keep the hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes and volcano eruptions from warming the earth. My point is this, if you are right and I am wrong, then there is absolutely nothing we can do to change the course we are on. So why worry about it, just enjoy what time we have here on earth. If I am right and you are wrong, then we still get to enjoy life we have on earth and so do our children, grandchildren and so on.

I will not comment any more about this on this forum because it is not the place for it to be debated.