Why does the right insist on spreading lies about Al Gore?

I've often wondered ......
Why does the right insist on spreading lies about Al Gore?

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/03/22/why-does-the-right-insist-on-spreading-lies-about-al-gore/

Those of us who actually spent time ... getting to know Vice President Gore's contributions to society and concerns about our world ... are deeply offended by those who don't take the time to seek the truth about this issue.

Al Gore is a great guy, and I had the pleasure of meeting him while working on his presidential campaign in 2000 .... and his wife, Tipper, is a real sweetheart too !!

Gore could have stood up and fought an obvious stolen election in 2000. He chose not to, and look where we are now. Make no mistake, he is a scumbag like the rest of them.

somebigguy said:

Gore could have stood up and fought an obvious stolen election in 2000. He chose not to, and look where we are now. Make no mistake, he is a scumbag like the rest of them.

Click to expand...

Amen brother! Nothing personal against this DOUCHE. He's nothing more special than any of the OTHER douches. I read some of his quotes and have to laugh sooo hard at what a MORON this guy is. And I get labled as stupid by ppl who love him. Any politician you support in todays world is a gross display of your OWN ignorance. Not to say there are no good people in politics. But they can't make a difference in a system so corrupt. And if they try too hard, they get JFK'd. Thats how you KNOW they are scumbags... The ones who do the best are the scummiest.

IMO tipper looks more like a man than Al does these days... Any thoughts?

She did lead the PMRC

I guess I live on a different planet that you guys. I seem to recall a famous election dispute that ended at the supreme court - with the judges handing over the presidency to monkey that's running our country into the ground. Maybe I dreamed it .....

Honestly, I flip-flop on whether I like this guy or not...but Darko is right...Tipper did start the PMRC. Which actually brings her up a few notches in my book. I mean it helped me determine which tapes I wanted to buy when I was a kid, the ones with the Parental Guidance stickers on them.

But they can't make a difference in a system so corrupt. And if they try too hard, they get JFK'd.

Click to expand...

I think this is why Al Gore chooses to stay out of politics today. There was a Good Reason why the 2000 election was hijacked. Gore wasn't going to play dirty and they knew it.

Chana3812 said:

I think this is why Al Gore chooses to stay out of politics today. There was a Good Reason why the 2000 election was hijacked. Gore wasn't going to play dirty and they knew it.

Click to expand...

Exactly. He knew that to push would result in his immediate murder. And if you had a large caliber weapon in my ear and FORCED me to pick something about him that didn't make me want to vomit, I would have to say that I respected that he stuck around in ANY capacity, and is trying to do what he feels is the right thing. I question everyones motives.... especially the filthy rich.
See Chana, while I have nothing at all personal against you (I didn't bring it there, I was just being my usual stubborn self) I don't believe it matters WHO is in there. There is not a single politician ON THE PLANET, who I think can do a fucking thing about a system so helplessly corrupt. That is not to say I don't believe none of these people have good IN them. There are no doubt some that do. But let one of them try to do ANYTHING beyond global elite parameters, and they will be either McKinney'd, or Kennedy'd very shortly after they step out of the box...

http://www.investors.com/editorial/editorialcontent.asp?secid=1501&status=article&id=259542253407130

Solar Eclipse Of The Facts
INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY

Posted 3/23/2007

Environmentalism: The same day that Al Gore lectured Congress about man-made global warming, NASA made a startling announcement: The sun is hotter and more active than thought.

NASA detailed new observations of solar explosions from a powerful space telescope that recently beamed back X-ray images of the sun's outermost layer. Scientists expected to see a calm region but instead saw a bubbling mass of swaying and arching spikes, some more than 5,000 miles long . The tangled magnetic fields dump energy back into the corona, causing huge temperature flares.

The sunspot intensity shocked NASA astronomers, who held the press conference in Washington as Gore testified nearby that the planet has a 'fever' caused by carbon-spewing humans. Of course, the media were too busy genuflecting before The Goracle on the Hill to cover the NASA news.

'If your baby has a fever, you go to the doctor,' Gore intoned. 'If the doctor says you need to intervene, you take action.'

Yes, action such as 'completely eliminating the internal combustion engine' and riding bicycles, taxing factories into bankruptcy and building windmills. In short, creating a 'carbon-free economy' and impoverishing everyone in the process.

But what if the doctor has misdiagnosed the cause of the fever? What if the remedy Gore is prescribing is dead wrong?

He and the rest of the greenhouse gasbags won't even entertain the simplest explanation for global warming. Like a solar eclipse, they've blotted out debate on the sun's factor, despite growing evidence to support it.

As we have pointed out, global temps closely track solar cycles as measured by sunspot intensity. The Danish Meteorological Institute first reported the correlation in a study going back centuries. Historic data reveal that whenever the sun heated up, the earth heated up, and vice versa.

The sun causes global warming? What a concept!

But Gore shamelessly buried the inconvenient truth of the study in the footnotes of his book. If he acknowledged the sun's role in global warming, how could he justify taxing industry and launching his massive wealth-transfer scheme?

Here's another fact he won't talk about on his way to a Nobel Prize: Mars is also warming. NASA says ice caps near that planet's south pole are melting. A growing number of scientists say solar irradiance is heating both Mars and Earth simultaneously.

And here's another inconvenient fact: The sun's radiation has increased by 0.5% per decade since the late 1970s, while carbon output has waxed and waned with global recessions. If warming were caused by carbon output, you'd expect to see temps fall in slumps and rise in booms along with carbon output. Data show no such link.

The Hoover Institution ran the numbers. 'The effects of solar activity and volcanoes were impossible to miss. Temperatures fluctuated exactly as expected, and the pattern was so clear that, statistically, the odds of the correlation existing by chance were less than 1 in 100,' according to a study earlier this decade by Hoover fellow Bruce Berkowitz.

'Yet try as we might,' the study added, 'we simply could not find any relationship between industrial activity, energy consumption, and changes in global temperatures. We tried adjusting for delayed effects. We tried adjusting for cumulative effects. Nothing — the relationship wasn't there.'

The study concluded that even if you completely shut down factories and power plants — as Gore recommends — 'there would not be much effect on temperatures.'

Ouch, so much for that theory. If the planet has a 'fever,' it more than likely got it from the sun, not furnaces and engines.

Alarmist global warming claims melt under scientific scrutiny



June 30, 2007
BY JAMES M. TAYLOR
In his new book, The Assault on Reason, Al Gore pleads, "We must stop tolerating the rejection and distortion of science. We must insist on an end to the cynical use of pseudo-studies known to be false for the purpose of intentionally clouding the public's ability to discern the truth." Gore repeatedly asks that science and reason displace cynical political posturing as the central focus of public discourse.



If Gore really means what he writes, he has an opportunity to make a difference by leading by example on the issue of global warming.

A cooperative and productive discussion of global warming must be open and honest regarding the science. Global warming threats ought to be studied and mitigated, and they should not be deliberately exaggerated as a means of building support for a desired political position.

Many of the assertions Gore makes in his movie, ''An Inconvenient Truth,'' have been refuted by science, both before and after he made them. Gore can show sincerity in his plea for scientific honesty by publicly acknowledging where science has rebutted his claims.

For example, Gore claims that Himalayan glaciers are shrinking and global warming is to blame. Yet the September 2006 issue of the American Meteorological Society's Journal of Climate reported, "Glaciers are growing in the Himalayan Mountains, confounding global warming alarmists who recently claimed the glaciers were shrinking and that global warming was to blame."

Gore claims the snowcap atop Africa's Mt. Kilimanjaro is shrinking and that global warming is to blame. Yet according to the November 23, 2003, issue of Nature magazine, "Although it's tempting to blame the ice loss on global warming, researchers think that deforestation of the mountain's foothills is the more likely culprit. Without the forests' humidity, previously moisture-laden winds blew dry. No longer replenished with water, the ice is evaporating in the strong equatorial sunshine."

Gore claims global warming is causing more tornadoes. Yet the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change stated in February that there has been no scientific link established between global warming and tornadoes.

Gore claims global warming is causing more frequent and severe hurricanes. However, hurricane expert Chris Landsea published a study on May 1 documenting that hurricane activity is no higher now than in decades past. Hurricane expert William Gray reported just a few days earlier, on April 27, that the number of major hurricanes making landfall on the U.S. Atlantic coast has declined in the past 40 years. Hurricane scientists reported in the April 18 Geophysical Research Letters that global warming enhances wind shear, which will prevent a significant increase in future hurricane activity.

Gore claims global warming is causing an expansion of African deserts. However, the Sept. 16, 2002, issue of New Scientist reports, "Africa's deserts are in 'spectacular' retreat . . . making farming viable again in what were some of the most arid parts of Africa."

Gore argues Greenland is in rapid meltdown, and that this threatens to raise sea levels by 20 feet. But according to a 2005 study in the Journal of Glaciology, "the Greenland ice sheet is thinning at the margins and growing inland, with a small overall mass gain." In late 2006, researchers at the Danish Meteorological Institute reported that the past two decades were the coldest for Greenland since the 1910s.

Gore claims the Antarctic ice sheet is melting because of global warming. Yet the Jan. 14, 2002, issue of Nature magazine reported Antarctica as a whole has been dramatically cooling for decades. More recently, scientists reported in the September 2006 issue of the British journal Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society Series A: Mathematical, Physical, and Engineering Sciences, that satellite measurements of the Antarctic ice sheet showed significant growth between 1992 and 2003. And the U.N. Climate Change panel reported in February 2007 that Antarctica is unlikely to lose any ice mass during the remainder of the century.

Each of these cases provides an opportunity for Gore to lead by example in his call for an end to the distortion of science. Will he rise to the occasion? Only time will tell.

James M. Taylor is senior fellow for environment policy at the Heartland Institute.

HEARTLAND INSTITUTE SPEWS EXXON'S BULLSHIT SCIENCE

Profile: Heartland Institute




Heartland Institute was a participant or observer in the following events:


Between 1998 and 2005: ExxonMobil Grants $16 Million to Global Warming Skeptic OrganizationssEL('1626004942-16347','16347')


ExxonMobil disperses roughly $16 million to organizations that are challenging the scientific consensus view that greenhouse gases are causing global warming.

For many of the organizations such as the Heartland Institute, ExxonMobil is their single largest corporate donor, often providing more than 10 percent of their annual budgets.

A study by the Union of Concerned Scientists will find that “virtually all of them publish and publicize the work of a nearly identical group of spokespeople, including scientists who misrepresent peer-reviewed climate findings and confuse the public’s understanding of global warming.

Most of these organizations also include these same individuals as board members or scientific advisers.” After the Bush administration withdraws from the Kyoto Protocol (see March 27, 2001), the oil company steps up its support for these organizations.

Some of the ExxonMobil-funded groups tell the New York Times that the increase is a response to the rising level of public interest in the issue. “Firefighters’ budgets go up when fires go up,” explains Fred L. Smith, head of the Competitive Enterprise Institute. Explaining ExxonMobil’s support for these organizations, company spokesman Tom Cirigliano says: “We want to support organizations that are trying to broaden the debate on an issue that is so important to all of us. There is this whole issue that no one should question the science of global climate change. That is ludicrous. That’s the kind of dark-ages thinking that gets you in a lot of trouble.” [New York Times, 5/28/2003; Union of Concerned Scientists, 2007


AL GORE -STILL MY HERO
Chana

That's the way. Instead of refuting any of the facts represented by the information provided, lets play a shell game of who gets what from where.

Aug, you can find someone to refute SOMETHING ABOUT ANYTHING, and you're right .... it is a shell game, played expertly by those who seek to discredit caring people.

My point is that the rightwing always finds a scientist to back them (especially when Exxon shells out millions). You're a rightwinger, so you will always believe in the "science" that your sides spits out.

I believe in saving the environment and have felt that way for as long as I can remember. I grew up in the country ... rural Texas. I love nature and all things green. And I don't want to see the big corporations continue to pollute and ruin our beautiful world.

Since I personally know Al Gore's integrity (unlike you, who simply buys into the rightwing Al Gore hating machine), I am confident that He & his wife, Tipper, have a sincere and committed interest in protecting and sustaining the delicate balance of our environment.

Regarding your remark about refuting the "evidence" in your posted articles .... GEE, I would love to go on an extended scientific expedition and take a few trusted scientists with me and GET TO THE BOTTOM of this global warming conflict, but alas .. I have not the time or financial status to do such.

So I have to rely on the SOURCE. If the source is a BOUGHT AND PAID FOR right wing think take (Heartland Institute paid millions by EXXON), me thinks they may have an agenda. Could I be right??

When was the LAST TIME you heard of a Republican giving a FUCKING DAMN about doing something good for the environment, or for mankind even, for God's sake!

Did you ever watch "An Inconvenient Truth"? Why don't you do something out of the ordinary, cross over to the benevolent side of life and listen to those who concern themselves with caring for others, caring for the world. Go watch a movie by Al Gore and feel liberated, feel educated, feel concern for the future of mankind. It's a great feeling

Or Maybe just read this good CNN article = 8 technologies to save the world

Aug said:

But they can't make a difference in a system so corrupt. And if they try too hard, they get JFK'd.

Click to expand...

I hear ya man. One of the few reasons I'd rather Dr. Paul not get elected. They would kill him for sure.

Chana3812 said:

Aug, you can find someone to refute SOMETHING ABOUT ANYTHING, and you're right .... it is a shell game, played expertly by those who seek to discredit caring people.

My point is that the rightwing always finds a scientist to back them (especially when Exxon shells out millions). You're a rightwinger, so you will always believe in the "science" that your sides spits out.

I believe in saving the environment and have felt that way for as long as I can remember. I grew up in the country ... rural Texas. I love nature and all things green. And I don't want to see the big corporations continue to pollute and ruin our beautiful world.

Since I personally know Al Gore's integrity (unlike you, who simply buys into the rightwing Al Gore hating machine), I am confident that He & his wife, Tipper, have a sincere and committed interest in protecting and sustaining the delicate balance of our environment.

Regarding your remark about refuting the "evidence" in your posted articles .... GEE, I would love to go on an extended scientific expedition and take a few trusted scientists with me and GET TO THE BOTTOM of this global warming conflict, but alas .. I have not the time or financial status to do such.

So I have to rely on the SOURCE. If the source is a BOUGHT AND PAID FOR right wing think take (Heartland Institute paid millions by EXXON), me thinks they may have an agenda. Could I be right??

When was the LAST TIME you heard of a Republican giving a FUCKING DAMN about doing something good for the environment, or for mankind even, for God's sake!

Did you ever watch "An Inconvenient Truth"? Why don't you do something out of the ordinary, cross over to the benevolent side of life and listen to those who concern themselves with caring for others, caring for the world. Go watch a movie by Al Gore and feel liberated, feel educated, feel concern for the future of mankind. It's a great feeling

Or Maybe just read this good CNN article = 8 technologies to save the world

Click to expand...

Heh, funny, I never knew what winger I was. I guess now I know what I am perceived as anyway. I don't consider myself any wing at all. IMO, you are driven by labels. This one is a "right winger." That one is a republican who doesn't give a damn about humanity. This one doesn't like amputee PUPPIES for crying out loud.
You really don't know who I am, or what I do for people in my spare time. That you make such broad statements without any information speaks volumes to me. I was raised to make charitable acts in private. So while I may not be in here lamenting my own actions, or those of others, does not mean I do not act charitably.
I mean no offense to you when I say I believe Al Gore to be a MORON. I would not be watching a movie by HIM. I would be watching a movie of information spoon fed to him that he regurgetated and ended up with production credits for. I look at the hypocracy of his actions VS. his words. You don't talk about the horror of global warming while organizing a concert that will require more fossil fuel than Kerplakistan uses in a century.
I truely wish I had more time, but I have to drive 80 miles to work (in a truck that gets 12 miles to the gallon, and I'm gonna keep my foot STOMPED down all the while singing we are the world and smiling. PS. Chana, the check engine light has been on for MONTHS! Know what I think it is? The catalytic converter! Know what THAT does? Reduces emissions. Know what I'm gonna DO about it? NOTHING!) DOes that make me a right winger? Nope, just an asshole. But you knew that already.
I leave you with this little nugget. Please feel free to rip it one apart. I am dying to see if the Dead Puppy society funded this one as well...

[font=Times New Roman, Times, serif]The Only Cure for Global Warming[/font]


[font=Times New Roman, Times, serif]There are some who, lacking the ecstatic thrill of any other faith-based religion, wish to believe that the earth is in the early stages of an unprecedented climatic change which will see temperatures soar, the polar ice caps melt, rising sea levels flood our coastal cities – general devastation on the biblical model – all because we insist on driving petroleum-fueled private automobiles and using electricity generated by burning coal.[/font]

[font=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Burning that stuff releases into the atmosphere large amounts of carbon dioxide, you see, a "greenhouse gas" which contributes to the ongoing warming of the planet.[/font]

[font=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Now, this is almost entirely nonsense. The planet is currently warming at a rate of perhaps one degree a century, part of an ongoing cycle of global warming and cooling which (ice cores and other fossil records tell us) has been ongoing for millions of years. This is caused not primarily by CO2 levels – changes in atmospheric CO2 loading actually TRAIL temperature shifts by decades or even centuries – but rather by fluctuating solar activity. Even if CO2 were a factor, most of the CO2 in the atmosphere comes from volcanoes and the natural processes of the oceans, not from man-made sources.[/font]

[font=Times New Roman, Times, serif]If warming continues at the present rate, the most significant impact is likely to be a small increase in the amount of previously frozen ground in which people can now grow wheat.[/font]

[font=Times New Roman, Times, serif]The global warming hysteria will be remembered as one of those episodes of "hysteria and the madness of crowds" which saw bands of flagellants wandering Europe urging folks to finish work on those cathedrals real soon because the world was going to come to an end at the millennium in 1,000 A.D., and the minor panic of Oct. 30–31, 1938, when numerous radio listeners were taken in by the realistic Orson Welles broadcast of "The War of the Worlds."[/font]

[font=Times New Roman, Times, serif]The difference from those earlier episodes of mass folly, however, is that there is a group of folks with an ulterior motive beating the drums for this one. These are jealous socialists who want America to be a lot more like Europe, punishing "rich people" for the gall of freely driving where they want, when they want, in their "wasteful" private automobiles. This gang wants prohibitive taxes on cars and gasoline, with the money to be shifted into mass transit boondoggles that will require us all to enjoy much more togetherness, singing kum-ba-ya in three-part harmony as we live in quaint urban walk-ups and ride around packed into little tin trolley cars in a neater, tidier world a lot more like Sweden, or possibly the Beatles’ Magical Mystery Tour – "Roll up, roll up for the mystery tour!"[/font]

[font=Times New Roman, Times, serif]These people still say they’re fighting "to protect the environment." But they’ve pulled off a massive shift, largely unnoticed, in the meaning of that word.[/font]

[font=Times New Roman, Times, serif]It used to be that we said we wanted to improve man’s life by cleaning up man’s environment. We wanted to reduce soot in the air and toxic crap in the water, the same way we’d try to train a particularly slow-witted kitty-cat not to poop in his own food bowl.[/font]

[font=Times New Roman, Times, serif]By "the environment" we meant "mankind’s environment" – the fresh air and clean water and green trees that make our human lives healthier and more pleasant.[/font]

[font=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Last weekend, however, the Review-Journal ran an editorial ridiculing the radical Greens for fighting a pipeline needed to transport drinking water to Las Vegas from east central Nevada by using their usual cat’s paw – insisting the plan would damage some obscure minnow in some pond in Utah. [/font]

[font=Times New Roman, Times, serif]"It appears that the RJ editorials have hit a new low," wrote one of these characters. "The childish, blind-eye editorial in Sunday’s paper was pathetic. Apparently whoever wrote (and approved it) feels that man is the only thing on earth worth saving ... and damn the environment if it gets in their way!"[/font]

[font=Times New Roman, Times, serif]So now "the environment," as used by these zealots, no longer means "the environs of mankind, which make mankind’s life healthier and more enjoyable," and which might presumably include "enough water to drink." Rather, the term has been skinned and cured, turned into sheep’s clothing and draped over a lurking wolf. The term is now used to mean "pristine nature, a beautiful thing which is endangered by the ongoing prosperity and procreation of human beings, a foul invasive enemy whose numbers need to be reduced through thirst and other means."[/font]

[font=Times New Roman, Times, serif]That’s a big change, worth remembering the next time you’re tempted to say, "Well, of course we all consider ourselves environmentalists ..."[/font]

[font=Times New Roman, Times, serif]But, all that said, let’s pretend for a moment we agree that the earth is heating up to an unprecedented degree, as punishment from the Goddess Gaia for our hubris in daring to tame the wilderness, putting in stand-alone houses and sewage lines and Wendy’s drive-through windows.[/font]

[font=Times New Roman, Times, serif]If these Chicken Littles really believed this, what would they be doing? They’d be looking for proven ways to really cool things down, of course.[/font]

[font=Times New Roman, Times, serif]How about examining the historical record for the approximately 200 years for which we have reliable weather data? Look to see if there was a period when the weather cooled down, all of a sudden, and what caused it.[/font]

[font=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Google "Year Without Summer." From April 5 to 15 of the year 1815, Mount Tambora on the island of Sumbawa in the Dutch East Indies (modern-day Indonesia) blew up, ejecting 40 cubic kilometers of volcanic ash (more than twice as much as the 1883 explosion of Krakatoa) into the upper atmosphere.[/font]

[font=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Other volcanoes – La Soufrière on Saint Vincent in the Caribbean in 1812 and Mayon in the Philippines in 1814 – had already built up a substantial amount of atmospheric dust. [/font]

[font=Times New Roman, Times, serif]That stuff stayed up there, in the jet stream, for more than a year. Sunlight got reflected off that orbiting cloud of crap, and had trouble getting through. The "Year Without a Summer," known colloquially as "Eighteen hundred and froze to death," was 1816, in which severe summer climate abnormalities destroyed crops in Northern Europe, the American Northeast, eastern Canada and even China.[/font]

[font=Times New Roman, Times, serif]In May, frost killed off most of the crops that had been planted. In June, two large snowstorms in eastern Canada and New England resulted in many human deaths. In July and August, lake and river ice were observed as far south as Pennsylvania.[/font]

[font=Times New Roman, Times, serif]In Europe, food riots broke out and grain warehouses were looted. A recent BBC documentary tallied up 200,000 deaths.[/font]

[font=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Clearly, if anyone believes the earth is warming catastrophically and that we need to do something, the only PROVEN solution is to start throwing as much crap into the atmosphere as we possibly can, right now.[/font]

[font=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Clean nuclear and natural-gas-fired power plants must be shut down and immediately replaced with coal plants burning the softest, dirtiest coal – even peat – that can be found. "Smog inspections" will take on a new meaning as our cars will be checked regularly to make sure each is pouring up the densest cloud of black smoke and carbon particulates possible.[/font]

[font=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Since every little bit counts, we may also have to make tobacco-smoking mandatory for everyone above the age of 10.[/font]

[font=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Now is not a time to hesitate, to refuse to make the minor sacrifice of breathing some slightly less healthful air. Global warming is a crisis, baby. It’s time we all set aside our selfish desire to keep our yard furniture free of drifting soot, and share the sacrifice! Think globally; act locally! Do your part![/font]
Pollution – wholesale, massive, sooty pollution – is the only answer!
P.S. – This is actually going to happen, whether we like it or not. The explosion of the Yellowstone caldera, already overdue, will make Tambora look like a kid’s sparkler. The real ecological challenge of the coming age will be global cooling.

​

[font=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif][font=Times New Roman, Times, serif]June 30, 2007[/font][/font]​

​

​

[/font]

Ancient Arctic ponds drying up as climate warms

By Julie SteenhuysenMon Jul 2, 6:57 PM ET



Ancient ponds in the Arctic are drying up during the polar summer as warmer temperatures evaporate shallow bodies of water, Canadian researchers said on Monday.

They said the evaporation of these ponds -- some of which have been around for thousands of years -- illustrates the rapid effects of global warming, threatening bird habitats and breeding grounds and reducing drinking water for animals.

For the past 24 years, researchers at the University of Alberta in Edmonton and Queen's University in Kingston, Ontario, have been tracking ponds at Cape Herschel, located on the east coast of Ellesmere Island in Nunavut, formerly the Northwest Territories of Canada.

Last year, when they went back to check, some of these 6,000-year-old ponds had vanished.

"We were surprised. We arrived in early to mid-July and the ponds we had been monitoring were dry. Some of them had dried up completely. Some were just about to lose the last remaining centimeters of water," said Marianne Douglas, director of the Canadian Circumpolar Institute at the University of Alberta.

"It's really interesting to see how quickly it is happening. We could see this trend had started a while ago but at no time did we expect it to accelerate," said Douglas, whose work appears in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Douglas said a study of the fossilized sediments in these pools of water -- which are less than 6.6 feet deep -- showed climate changes beginning as long as 150 years ago.

The researchers had thought these ponds were permanent. But change has come rapidly.

"It is a bit of a tipping point. We don't know how far this warming or drying will go," she said in a telephone interview.

Douglas, John Smol of Queen's University and colleagues took water samples to measure the concentration of minerals and sediments in the water. They compared it to data from the 1980s and found a significant change.

Evaporation had made the sediments much more concentrated.

They also discovered that ponds that formerly remained frozen until mid-July were free of ice as early as late May.

"No small wonder that we are seeing evaporation occurring," she said. "An extra month is tremendously long up there where the growing season is so short."

The changes will have significant impact on the birds and animals that rely on these sources of fresh water to survive and breed.

"The ecological ramifications of these changes ... will cascade throughout the Arctic ecosystem. ... Lower water levels will have many indirect environmental effects, such as further concentration of pollutants," they wrote.

Meh, if a few spotted owls have to die so I can drive my car fast and air condition my house, so be it! LOL

The Earth has been gradually warming ever since the last ice age. Man-made global warming is just another scare tactic. The right uses the terrorists, the left uses global warming. I don't buy any of it.

BASE701 said:

The Earth has been gradually warming ever since the last ice age. Man-made global warming is just another scare tactic. The right uses the terrorists, the left uses global warming. I don't buy any of it.

Click to expand...

Amen brotha, cycle of the planet. Still coming out of the last ice age is my thinking.