Why Antarctica will soon be the only place to live

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/...p?story=517321

Why Antarctica will soon be the only place to live - literally
By Geoffrey Lean, Environment Editor
02 May 2004

Antarctica is likely to be the world's
only habitable continent by the end of
this century if global warming remains
unchecked, the Government's chief scientist,
Professor Sir David King, said last week.

He said the Earth was entering the
"first hot period" for 60 million years,
when there was no ice on the planet and
"the rest of the globe could not sustain
human life".

The warning -
one of the starkest
delivered by a top scientist -
comes as ministers decide next
week whether to weaken measures
to cut the pollution that causes
climate change,

even though Tony Blair last
week described the situation as
"very, very critical indeed".

The Prime Minister -
who was launching a new alliance of governments,
businesses and pressure groups to tackle global
warming -

added that he could not think of
"any bigger long-term question
facing the world community".

Yet the Government is considering
relaxing limits on emissions by
industry under an EU scheme on
Tuesday.

Sir David said that levels of
carbon dioxide in the atmosphere -
the main "green- house gas"
causing climate change -
were already 50 per cent higher
than at any time in the past
420,000 years.

The last time they were at this level
- 379 parts per million -
was 60 million years ago during
a rapid period of global warming,
he said.

Levels soared to 1,000 parts per million,
causing a massive reduction of life.

"No ice was left on Earth.

Antarctica was the best place for
mammals to live, and the rest of
the world would not sustain human
life," he said.

Sir David warned that if the world
did not curb its burning of fossil
fuels "we will reach that level by 2100".

Greenland melt may swamp Los Angeles
__________________________________________________ _____________________________

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...08/ixhome.html

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/20...326866401.html

http://www.yachtingmonthly.com/auto/...114ymnews.html

http://newsfromrussia.com/science/2004/04/08/53306.html

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...ndicemelt.html

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...ent_climate_dc

__________________________________________________ _____________________________

Bush blames humans for global warming
__________________________________________________ __________

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2023835.stm

__________________________________________________ __________

"Oh the times they are a changing."

I guess we've got to start letting go of our attachements eh?

And kick dramatic and transformative change into high gear.

Are Reblublicans into dramatic and radical transformative progressive
change?

No, they are conservative, and are into slow change which preserves the
status quo, right?

I thought so.

"torresD" <torresD30@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:BM%kc.2701$V97.1790@newsread1.news.pas.earthl ink.net...
> http://news.independent.co.uk/world/...p?story=517321
>
> Why Antarctica will soon be the only place to live - literally
> By Geoffrey Lean, Environment Editor
> 02 May 2004
>
>
> Antarctica is likely to be the world's
> only habitable continent by the end of
> this century if global warming remains
> unchecked, the Government's chief scientist,
> Professor Sir David King, said last week.
>
> He said the Earth was entering the
> "first hot period" for 60 million years,
> when there was no ice on the planet and
> "the rest of the globe could not sustain
> human life".
>
> The warning -
> one of the starkest
> delivered by a top scientist -
> comes as ministers decide next
> week whether to weaken measures
> to cut the pollution that causes
> climate change,
>
> even though Tony Blair last
> week described the situation as
> "very, very critical indeed".
>
> The Prime Minister -
> who was launching a new alliance of governments,
> businesses and pressure groups to tackle global
> warming -
>
> added that he could not think of
> "any bigger long-term question
> facing the world community".
>
> Yet the Government is considering
> relaxing limits on emissions by
> industry under an EU scheme on
> Tuesday.
>
> Sir David said that levels of
> carbon dioxide in the atmosphere -
> the main "green- house gas"
> causing climate change -
> were already 50 per cent higher
> than at any time in the past
> 420,000 years.
>
> The last time they were at this level
> - 379 parts per million -
> was 60 million years ago during
> a rapid period of global warming,
> he said.
>
> Levels soared to 1,000 parts per million,
> causing a massive reduction of life.
>
> "No ice was left on Earth.
>
> Antarctica was the best place for
> mammals to live, and the rest of
> the world would not sustain human
> life," he said.
>
> Sir David warned that if the world
> did not curb its burning of fossil
> fuels "we will reach that level by 2100".
>
>

On Sun, 02 May 2004 06:42:52 +0100, grub@internet.charitydays.co.uk
wrote:

>Greenland melt may swamp Los Angeles

In a thousand years.

THE SKY IS FALLING, THE SKY IS FALLING!

torresD wrote:

> http://news.independent.co.uk/world/...p?story=517321
>
> Why Antarctica will soon be the only place to live - literally
> By Geoffrey Lean, Environment Editor
> 02 May 2004

Why don't you get a head start on the rest of us by moving there?

http://www.stentorian.com/kyoto/ re: global warming.

--Bill

grub@internet.charitydays.co.uk wrote:

> Bush blames humans for global warming
> __________________________________________________ __________
>
>
>
>
>
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2023835.stm

But until China and other Third World countries are subject to the
restrictions of the Kyoto Treaty, there is no reason for the U.S. to
sign it. Kyoto is just another Chinese plot for stealing U.S.
manufacturing jobs.

http://www.stentorian.com/kyoto/ re: global warming.

--Bill

"torresD" <torresD30@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<BM%kc.2701$V97.1790@newsread1.news.pas.earth link.net>...
> http://news.independent.co.uk/world/...p?story=517321
>
> Why Antarctica will soon be the only place to live - literally
> By Geoffrey Lean, Environment Editor
> 02 May 2004
>
>
> Antarctica is likely to be the world's
> only habitable continent by the end of
> this century if global warming remains
> unchecked, the Government's chief scientist,
> Professor Sir David King, said last week.
>
> He said the Earth was entering the
> "first hot period" for 60 million years,
> when there was no ice on the planet and
> "the rest of the globe could not sustain
> human life".
>
> The warning -
> one of the starkest
> delivered by a top scientist -
> comes as ministers decide next
> week whether to weaken measures
> to cut the pollution that causes
> climate change,
>
> even though Tony Blair last
> week described the situation as
> "very, very critical indeed".
>
> The Prime Minister -
> who was launching a new alliance of governments,
> businesses and pressure groups to tackle global
> warming -
>
> added that he could not think of
> "any bigger long-term question
> facing the world community".
>
> Yet the Government is considering
> relaxing limits on emissions by
> industry under an EU scheme on
> Tuesday.
>
> Sir David said that levels of
> carbon dioxide in the atmosphere -
> the main "green- house gas"
> causing climate change -
> were already 50 per cent higher
> than at any time in the past
> 420,000 years.
>
> The last time they were at this level
> - 379 parts per million -
> was 60 million years ago during
> a rapid period of global warming,
> he said.
>
> Levels soared to 1,000 parts per million,
> causing a massive reduction of life.
>
> "No ice was left on Earth.
>
> Antarctica was the best place for
> mammals to live, and the rest of
> the world would not sustain human
> life," he said.
>
> Sir David warned that if the world
> did not curb its burning of fossil
> fuels "we will reach that level by 2100".

This is complete crap. The Earth is nowhere near even its MEAN
historical temperature, and CO2 is not "50% higher" than it has
been... I was just looking at a historical CO2 graph in a climate
change article I read in National Geographic this past weekend, and
the "50% higher" claim is a flat-out lie! Are millions of ignorant
fools around the world really buying into this bull?

	#1
torresD	Why Antarctica will soon be the only place to live - literally http://news.independent.co.uk/world/...p?story=517321 Why Antarctica will soon be the only place to live - literally By Geoffrey Lean, Environment Editor 02 May 2004 Antarctica is likely to be the world's only habitable continent by the end of this century if global warming remains unchecked, the Government's chief scientist, Professor Sir David King, said last week. He said the Earth was entering the "first hot period" for 60 million years, when there was no ice on the planet and "the rest of the globe could not sustain human life". The warning - one of the starkest delivered by a top scientist - comes as ministers decide next week whether to weaken measures to cut the pollution that causes climate change, even though Tony Blair last week described the situation as "very, very critical indeed". The Prime Minister - who was launching a new alliance of governments, businesses and pressure groups to tackle global warming - added that he could not think of "any bigger long-term question facing the world community". Yet the Government is considering relaxing limits on emissions by industry under an EU scheme on Tuesday. Sir David said that levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere - the main "green- house gas" causing climate change - were already 50 per cent higher than at any time in the past 420,000 years. The last time they were at this level - 379 parts per million - was 60 million years ago during a rapid period of global warming, he said. Levels soared to 1,000 parts per million, causing a massive reduction of life. "No ice was left on Earth. Antarctica was the best place for mammals to live, and the rest of the world would not sustain human life," he said. Sir David warned that if the world did not curb its burning of fossil fuels "we will reach that level by 2100".

	#2
grub@internet.charitydays.co.uk	Re: Why Antarctica will soon be the only place to live - literally Greenland melt may swamp Los Angeles __________________________________________________ _____________________________ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...08/ixhome.html http://www.theage.com.au/articles/20...326866401.html http://www.yachtingmonthly.com/auto/...114ymnews.html http://newsfromrussia.com/science/2004/04/08/53306.html http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...ndicemelt.html http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...ent_climate_dc __________________________________________________ _____________________________

	#4
EagleEye	Re: Why Antarctica will soon be the only place to live - literally "Oh the times they are a changing." I guess we've got to start letting go of our attachements eh? And kick dramatic and transformative change into high gear. Are Reblublicans into dramatic and radical transformative progressive change? No, they are conservative, and are into slow change which preserves the status quo, right? I thought so. "torresD" <torresD30@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:BM%kc.2701$V97.1790@newsread1.news.pas.earthl ink.net... > http://news.independent.co.uk/world/...p?story=517321 > > Why Antarctica will soon be the only place to live - literally > By Geoffrey Lean, Environment Editor > 02 May 2004 > > > Antarctica is likely to be the world's > only habitable continent by the end of > this century if global warming remains > unchecked, the Government's chief scientist, > Professor Sir David King, said last week. > > He said the Earth was entering the > "first hot period" for 60 million years, > when there was no ice on the planet and > "the rest of the globe could not sustain > human life". > > The warning - > one of the starkest > delivered by a top scientist - > comes as ministers decide next > week whether to weaken measures > to cut the pollution that causes > climate change, > > even though Tony Blair last > week described the situation as > "very, very critical indeed". > > The Prime Minister - > who was launching a new alliance of governments, > businesses and pressure groups to tackle global > warming - > > added that he could not think of > "any bigger long-term question > facing the world community". > > Yet the Government is considering > relaxing limits on emissions by > industry under an EU scheme on > Tuesday. > > Sir David said that levels of > carbon dioxide in the atmosphere - > the main "green- house gas" > causing climate change - > were already 50 per cent higher > than at any time in the past > 420,000 years. > > The last time they were at this level > - 379 parts per million - > was 60 million years ago during > a rapid period of global warming, > he said. > > Levels soared to 1,000 parts per million, > causing a massive reduction of life. > > "No ice was left on Earth. > > Antarctica was the best place for > mammals to live, and the rest of > the world would not sustain human > life," he said. > > Sir David warned that if the world > did not curb its burning of fossil > fuels "we will reach that level by 2100". > >

	#5
Neal Atkins	Re: Why Antarctica will soon be the only place to live - literally On Sun, 02 May 2004 06:42:52 +0100, grub@internet.charitydays.co.uk wrote: >Greenland melt may swamp Los Angeles In a thousand years. THE SKY IS FALLING, THE SKY IS FALLING!

	#6
Bill Levinson	Re: Why Antarctica will soon be the only place to live - literally torresD wrote: > http://news.independent.co.uk/world/...p?story=517321 > > Why Antarctica will soon be the only place to live - literally > By Geoffrey Lean, Environment Editor > 02 May 2004 Why don't you get a head start on the rest of us by moving there? http://www.stentorian.com/kyoto/ re: global warming. --Bill

	#8
zach	Re: Why Antarctica will soon be the only place to live - literally "torresD" <torresD30@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<BM%kc.2701$V97.1790@newsread1.news.pas.earth link.net>... > http://news.independent.co.uk/world/...p?story=517321 > > Why Antarctica will soon be the only place to live - literally > By Geoffrey Lean, Environment Editor > 02 May 2004 > > > Antarctica is likely to be the world's > only habitable continent by the end of > this century if global warming remains > unchecked, the Government's chief scientist, > Professor Sir David King, said last week. > > He said the Earth was entering the > "first hot period" for 60 million years, > when there was no ice on the planet and > "the rest of the globe could not sustain > human life". > > The warning - > one of the starkest > delivered by a top scientist - > comes as ministers decide next > week whether to weaken measures > to cut the pollution that causes > climate change, > > even though Tony Blair last > week described the situation as > "very, very critical indeed". > > The Prime Minister - > who was launching a new alliance of governments, > businesses and pressure groups to tackle global > warming - > > added that he could not think of > "any bigger long-term question > facing the world community". > > Yet the Government is considering > relaxing limits on emissions by > industry under an EU scheme on > Tuesday. > > Sir David said that levels of > carbon dioxide in the atmosphere - > the main "green- house gas" > causing climate change - > were already 50 per cent higher > than at any time in the past > 420,000 years. > > The last time they were at this level > - 379 parts per million - > was 60 million years ago during > a rapid period of global warming, > he said. > > Levels soared to 1,000 parts per million, > causing a massive reduction of life. > > "No ice was left on Earth. > > Antarctica was the best place for > mammals to live, and the rest of > the world would not sustain human > life," he said. > > Sir David warned that if the world > did not curb its burning of fossil > fuels "we will reach that level by 2100". This is complete crap. The Earth is nowhere near even its MEAN historical temperature, and CO2 is not "50% higher" than it has been... I was just looking at a historical CO2 graph in a climate change article I read in National Geographic this past weekend, and the "50% higher" claim is a flat-out lie! Are millions of ignorant fools around the world really buying into this bull?