Newt talks a different talk, but walks the same walk.

Both these fellows talk the talk, but walk the walk to a different place from the talk. Money?

Speaking of money! If you disagree with this, get aboard and tell me about it. If you think you can defend either of these two for sale guys, get aboard and tell me.

http://www.xomba.com/referral/77777d6e

The ironic humor in this situation is that these two fellows sound as they did before the threat of public awareness of the global emergency existed. They have no real solutions, but they want your money. Think of all that money as burnable methane under the arctic ice -- which will be gone in less than 40 years. Sure. Welcome aboard. You can find and exploit a new pool of pollution causing gas.

I copied part of my 'humor' posting here:

http://www.xomba.com/american_sportsmen_to_hunt_polar_bears_under_canadas_new_rules

Ironically, in the 1994 ascension of Gingrich to the throne in the Senate; he and most of the serving Senators had been told of the warming, given plenty of actual data and did not so much ignore it, as figure they could make a lot more by using the money big oil would give them to just 'roll' on the subject of warming, and the environment. And there was soooo much money!

It is not that no one knew.

But to hear Newt tell about it now -- it just was not clear. . . as it might be thought of now.

http://www.xomba.com/the_polar_bear_threat

THE USGS WEIGHS IN: (Sept 2007)

The overall conclusion of the USGS research effort is:
Projected changes in future sea ice conditions, if realized, will result in loss of approximately 2/3 of the world’s current polar bear population by the mid 21st century. Because the observed trajectory of Arctic sea ice decline appears to be underestimated by currently available models, this assessment of future polar bear status may be conservative. (Italics, mine)

See:

http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/special/polar_bears/docs/executive_summary.pdf

The places in the arctic where the polar bear will be able to survive the longest are the continental shelf sea ice covered area's where the sea ice is 'blown' and circulated into contact with the extreme northernmost Canadian archipelago and the north-western adjacent areas of continental shelf polar ocean near Greenland. In all cases, it will be a combination of when both the ice and ringed seals vanish. Extinction is not a pretty thing, especially the ones engineered by anthropogenic means.

The Canadian archipelago and the northern reaches of Greenland's land mass are the final polar bear extinction sites. All others, from northern Europe around Russia though Alaska and Western Canada will have no more polar bears well before the final extinctions occur.

Okay. If you, as a "sportsman", do not act soon -- the opportunity will be forever lost! Two thirds of the current polar bear population will vanish before the year 2050. That gives you, as an "American Sportsman," a "window in time" to get your "trophy bear-hunting-act" together before even native guided "subsistence hunting" and native guided hunts for foreign hunters outlined in the rules below are likely banned. For American Sportsman to ever hunt the largest most dangerous mammal predator currently on the surface of the Earth requires some solid planning NOW. Realize of course, that if you do not plan ahead-- forget it.

See my humor article:

http://www.xomba.com/american_sportsmen_to_hunt_polar_bears_under_canadas_new_rules

Retrospectively, the corner apparently was turned on the polar bear's coming extinction by the time of the height of the Newt Gingrich era in Congress, which denied the last opportunity to begin real climate change recognition of the anthropogenic role and its outcome, and the changes needed to affect the future.

Biden now wants to ratify the sea treaty to insure? some kind of claim to exploit (for America?) the shallow parts of the Alaskan-adjacent ice free Arctic Ocean including of course the Exclusive Economic Zone for the possible extraction of methane (CH4) and natural gas and oil. . .to burn to increase the CO2 that is opening the Arctic to a complete ice free future and the extinction of both polar bear, and ringed seal, as a result of the anthropogenic forcing from burning the stuff now, in the past, and no stopping it for the future.

What is wrong with the vision of these people? We do not need another gram of carbon from fossil sources put into the air. If anything could be garnered from the arctic ocean being ice free -- the sealing of it, and the removal of these fossil fuel deposits from ANY exploitation by corporate or national interests should be parts of the Treaty of the Sea Biden is attempting to get ratified. But that is not what the politician advocates. There are concerns about polar sovereignty -- code for means of corporate exploitation, not preservation of the planet.

These political fellows, and their puppet master corporations are not your friends -- not the human species friends -- nor the environments friend.

Though I disagree with his figures, Carl Johnson computes the thermal equilibrium air and land will reach in 143 years. That value will toast the tropical rain forests and cause the melting of enough ice to eliminate much of Florida in your children's lifetimes as well as inundating NYC.

Read Carl here:
http://mb-soft.com/public3/global.html

BTW -- CARL is very religious, and numerous postings around his site show this. You non-believers might want to join in and look at Carl's perspective and get a feel for the numbers. You believers ought to look at the future Carl computes to be in store.

You doubters ought to be interested in the perils of seeing an ocean warmed to a kind of balance with the air.

I disagree with Carl on this problem --mainly for his not really addressing the heat capacity of the ocean -- but no one knows how this system performs and that is the scientific problem. But it will take a lot more solar warming or an incredibly large increase of CO2 dumped into the air to build the runaway greenhouse -- that really does end it all.

I do not think life on Earth will end even if Carl's scenario is correct. But Carl does see an end to life as we are aware of it, with the plants everything on land lives on -- vanishing. (Carl does NOT postulate a "runaway greenhouse.")

However without a climate model that describes what is really happening at both poles with the ocean interacting -- that is, without a solid understanding of the climate-ocean interaction globally, including the poles -- you can't get very close to the observed performance. Right now it is one sigma "off," one standard deviation in error, and the polar Arctic Ocean and atmosphere are warming far faster than the best IPCC models predict. Basically, mankind's science is not successful in recognizing what the Earth's water does to climate. The understanding is far shy of what it needs to be. Obviously, the oceans are the major key to the climate. It is the key to life and death on the planet.) Life in Carl's vision will certainly be diminished as much as any past extinction.

All you have to do is listen to Newt and Biden to get an idea of the power of the "short term" illusion, and the dubious promise of vast short term money for sponsoring the continued carbon to atmosphere exploitation problem we have.