Bad news (and good) on Arctic warming

Yet another sham of the eco-nazis. When you consider that the Mt. St. Helens eruption (the last big one, not just the little one recently) released more pollutants into the environment THAN ALL OF MANKIND SINCE THE DAWN OF TIME, you'll realize why I'm really not worried about it. If we are capable of controlling the weather, why don't we get rid of droughts, hurricanes, and tornadoes?

Plus, you just gotta love the Times - heaven forbid that the "warming" of the ice caps allow mankind to profit!

"There, sea-bed deposits of oil and gas that have until now been cloaked in thick shifting crusts of sea ice could soon be exploitable, and ice-free trade routes over Siberia could significantly cut shipping distances between Europe and Asia in the summer."

So, in other words, oil and gas will be more accessible, and therefore cheaper, and trade goods from across the globe will be cheaper because it's easier to move them across the oceans. Wow, sounds good to me! But wait!

"But the list of potential harms is far longer. The same retreat of sea ice, it says, "is very likely to have devastating consequences for polar bears, ice-living seals, and local people for whom these animals are a primary food source."

Ohmygosh! Polar bears and seals will lose their homes?! And the local people who eat them won't have any food!?! Sounds like the bears and seals will either adapt or die, and the locals need a Wal-Mart.

I love that opening sentence:

"the list of potential harms is far longer."

Yeah, in case you hadn't noticed, the New York Times has long ago lost the mantle as the newspaper of record. Now they're just another rag.