Kilimanjaro Glaciers Receeding!!! Proof of MMGW?

[Chadeaux]

Anyone ever notice how deathly quiet it gets in here when winter comes? Maybe all the MMGW folks are on their knees praying to the great Algore to bring a little warming their way . . .

Anyhow, for years the MMGW crowd has used Mount Kilimanjaro as a shining example of how MMGW is real. The shrinking size of the glaciers has been hailed as proof positive that MMGW is real, it's here, and it must be listened to (kinda like the NAG crowd).

Unfortunately (for the MMGW folks) the truth is now coming out. No, not the guide who claims that the glaciers are growing --- they aren't --- but from CLIMATE SCIENTISTS who REALLY STUDY weather patterns. Saw this in the Arkansas Demozette paper yesterday, but of course, they don't have a link on that liberal piece of TP.

“The icecap atop Mount Kilimanjaro,” reported a 2001 New York Times article, “which for thousands of years has floated like a cool beacon over the shimmering equatorial plain of Tanzania, is retreating at such a pace that it will disappear in less than 15 years, according to new studies.”

Remember that story, 11 years ago? Less that 4 years to go, right? Well, what has been learned since then?

http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/01/1...returning.html

KILIMANJARO, Tanzania — One of Mount Kilimanjaro's most dramatic features is its breathtaking glaciers, which slither across its dormant volcanic plateau and down its crater slope in frigid shades of bluish-green.

And one of the saddest claims of some scientists and environmental activists is that those glaciers are disappearing, perhaps before the end of the decade, another victim of rising global temperatures.

Athumani Juma doesn't believe it. A guide who's been hiking the mountain for the past seven years, he laughed when he was asked about the likelihood that Kilimanjaro's snowcap would disappear soon. The glaciers, he claimed, no longer are shrinking, but growing.

"Before, we were seeing glaciers melting," he explained during a recent descent from the summit. "But from 2010 to now, we have been seeing new glaciers."

So is one of the most popularly cited examples of the adverse effects of man-made climate change, Kilimanjaro's great melt, a myth?

Yes and no, said Georg Kaser, a professor at Innsbruck University in Austria who's a leading expert on low-latitude glaciers, including Kilimanjaro's.

The glaciers atop Kilimanjaro's highest peak, Kibo, are indeed melting, but not because of climate change, he said. They've been receding steadily since at least 1880.

"According to our understanding, the Kibo glaciers shrink and will disappear not because of changing climate conditions but because of conditions that are unfavorable in principle: It is simply too dry for these glaciers to exist under normal Holocene conditions," he emailed. The Holocene is how geologists refer to the period from the last Ice Age until now.

"The much less clear question is on how the glaciers came to exist, and there are indications that a series of exceptional wet years allowed them to build up during the first half of the 19th century," Kaser wrote.

Kilimanjaro visitors don't need to worry about the rare tropical glaciers vanishing in the next several years, but the summit will continue to gradually lose more and more of its icy grandeur. Projections suggest that the glaciers will disappear by 2046, give or take 10 or 20 years, Kaser said.

That's because the atmosphere around Kilimanjaro doesn't contain enough water to sustain large ice bodies, according to Kaser's research. Climate change might have affected the precipitation patterns in the region, but local temperatures don't appear to be a driving factor in the glacier retreat.

A separate study published in the journal Global and Planetary Change in November 2010 suggested that deforestation in Kilimanjaro's lower rain forests could be accelerating the glaciers' retreat because it leads to drier air around the mountain's peak.

What about Juma's claim that Kilimanjaro's glaciers have swelled instead of shrunk the past few years? Tanzania National Parks said it couldn't help clarify that; the park service doesn't monitor glacier movements on the mountain.

According to Kaser, there's no evidence to support Juma's observation. Such a reversal would require an increase in precipitation over the past two to three years, which didn't occur, he said.

[werleibr]

Anyone ever notice how deathly quiet it gets in here when winter comes? Maybe all the MMGW folks are on their knees praying to the great Algore to bring a little warming their way . . .

Anyhow, for years the MMGW crowd has used Mount Kilimanjaro as a shining example of how MMGW is real. The shrinking size of the glaciers has been hailed as proof positive that MMGW is real, it's here, and it must be listened to (kinda like the NAG crowd).

Unfortunately (for the MMGW folks) the truth is now coming out. No, not the guide who claims that the glaciers are growing --- they aren't --- but from CLIMATE SCIENTISTS who REALLY STUDY weather patterns. Saw this in the Arkansas Demozette paper yesterday, but of course, they don't have a link on that liberal piece of TP.

“The icecap atop Mount Kilimanjaro,” reported a 2001 New York Times article, “which for thousands of years has floated like a cool beacon over the shimmering equatorial plain of Tanzania, is retreating at such a pace that it will disappear in less than 15 years, according to new studies.”

Remember that story, 11 years ago? Less that 4 years to go, right? Well, what has been learned since then?

http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/01/1...returning.html

KILIMANJARO, Tanzania — One of Mount Kilimanjaro's most dramatic features is its breathtaking glaciers, which slither across its dormant volcanic plateau and down its crater slope in frigid shades of bluish-green.

And one of the saddest claims of some scientists and environmental activists is that those glaciers are disappearing, perhaps before the end of the decade, another victim of rising global temperatures.

Athumani Juma doesn't believe it. A guide who's been hiking the mountain for the past seven years, he laughed when he was asked about the likelihood that Kilimanjaro's snowcap would disappear soon. The glaciers, he claimed, no longer are shrinking, but growing.

"Before, we were seeing glaciers melting," he explained during a recent descent from the summit. "But from 2010 to now, we have been seeing new glaciers."

So is one of the most popularly cited examples of the adverse effects of man-made climate change, Kilimanjaro's great melt, a myth?

Yes and no, said Georg Kaser, a professor at Innsbruck University in Austria who's a leading expert on low-latitude glaciers, including Kilimanjaro's.

The glaciers atop Kilimanjaro's highest peak, Kibo, are indeed melting, but not because of climate change, he said. They've been receding steadily since at least 1880.

"According to our understanding, the Kibo glaciers shrink and will disappear not because of changing climate conditions but because of conditions that are unfavorable in principle: It is simply too dry for these glaciers to exist under normal Holocene conditions," he emailed. The Holocene is how geologists refer to the period from the last Ice Age until now.

"The much less clear question is on how the glaciers came to exist, and there are indications that a series of exceptional wet years allowed them to build up during the first half of the 19th century," Kaser wrote.

Kilimanjaro visitors don't need to worry about the rare tropical glaciers vanishing in the next several years, but the summit will continue to gradually lose more and more of its icy grandeur. Projections suggest that the glaciers will disappear by 2046, give or take 10 or 20 years, Kaser said.

That's because the atmosphere around Kilimanjaro doesn't contain enough water to sustain large ice bodies, according to Kaser's research. Climate change might have affected the precipitation patterns in the region, but local temperatures don't appear to be a driving factor in the glacier retreat.

A separate study published in the journal Global and Planetary Change in November 2010 suggested that deforestation in Kilimanjaro's lower rain forests could be accelerating the glaciers' retreat because it leads to drier air around the mountain's peak.

What about Juma's claim that Kilimanjaro's glaciers have swelled instead of shrunk the past few years? Tanzania National Parks said it couldn't help clarify that; the park service doesn't monitor glacier movements on the mountain.

According to Kaser, there's no evidence to support Juma's observation. Such a reversal would require an increase in precipitation over the past two to three years, which didn't occur, he said.

Not much is really stated to disprove MMGW. Infact they say that it is reducing do to lack of precipitation. The lack of precipitation they think is due to the deforestation and is causing a climate change, CAUSED BY MAN. Now here is the funny and contradicting thing of the news article.

"According to our understanding, the Kibo glaciers shrink and will disappear not because of changing climate conditions but because of conditions that are unfavorable in principle: It is simply too dry for these glaciers to exist under normal Holocene conditions," he [Georg Kaser] emailed.

Go down a few paragraphs

That's because the atmosphere around Kilimanjaro doesn't contain enough water to sustain large ice bodies, according to Kaser's research. Climate change might have affected the precipitation patterns in the region, but local temperatures don't appear to be a driving factor in the glacier retreat.

So the guy has research that states climate change has possibly affected the precipitation patterns which leads to loss of the glacer, however he stated that the loss has not been due to climate change. Hmmm...

Now ok I know how you are going to come at this. This was a mistake. The reporter misquoted him. The story lines should have read as such "According to our understanding, the Kibo glaciers shrink and will disappear not because of global warming conditions but ...

However this is now what was reported. This is not conclusive evidece of lack of MMGW, but hints at MAN MADE CLIMATE CHANGE.

[Chadeaux]

Not much is really stated to disprove MMGW. Infact they say that it is reducing do to lack of precipitation. The lack of precipitation they think is due to the deforestation and is causing a climate change, CAUSED BY MAN. Now here is the funny and contradicting thing of the news article.

"According to our understanding, the Kibo glaciers shrink and will disappear not because of changing climate conditions but because of conditions that are unfavorable in principle: It is simply too dry for these glaciers to exist under normal Holocene conditions," he [Georg Kaser] emailed.

Go down a few paragraphs

That's because the atmosphere around Kilimanjaro doesn't contain enough water to sustain large ice bodies, according to Kaser's research. Climate change might have affected the precipitation patterns in the region, but local temperatures don't appear to be a driving factor in the glacier retreat.

So the guy has research that states climate change has possibly affected the precipitation patterns which leads to loss of the glacer, however he stated that the loss has not been due to climate change. Hmmm...

Now ok I know how you are going to come at this. This was a mistake. The reporter misquoted him. The story lines should have read as such "According to our understanding, the Kibo glaciers shrink and will disappear not because of global warming conditions but ...

However this is now what was reported. This is not conclusive evidece of lack of MMGW, but hints at MAN MADE CLIMATE CHANGE.

IF you BOTHERED TO READ . . . THE REST OF THE STORY, you would have looked at the paragraph that stated HOW the glaciers got there in the first place.

"The much less clear question is on how the glaciers came to exist, and there are indications that a series of exceptional wet years allowed them to build up during the first half of the 19th century," Kaser wrote.

There, he is referring to the "little Ice Age" of the early 19th century. Look up the year without a summer (1816 I believe) for more information.

and how about this part of the article:

It is simply too dry for these glaciers to exist under normal Holocene conditions,

Wobblier, the fact is . . . at some point there were UNUSUALLY WET years at some point which were the CAUSE of the glaciers.

NORMAL (where you inserted of your own free will the term climate change) Normal HALOCENE conditions are not wet enough. So the weather at present there is NORMAL. What was the cause of the unusual event that triggered the unusually wet period that gave birth to the glaciers?

Well, Halocene covers the period of earth's history 12,000 BP (before present) which would be (if you are Christian and believe the scriptures are truthful) some 6,000 years longer than man has been here.

I throw out that possibly those waters are from the flood of Noah's day, but that really isn't so important to this discussion.

I just had to bait you to give you the chance to hang yourself with the MMGW tag that SOOOoooo belongs to you.

[werleibr]

Not much is really stated to disprove MMGW. Infact they say that it is reducing do to lack of precipitation. The lack of precipitation they think is due to the deforestation and is causing a climate change, CAUSED BY MAN. Now here is the funny and contradicting thing of the news article.

"According to our understanding, the Kibo glaciers shrink and will disappear not because of changing climate conditions but because of conditions that are unfavorable in principle: It is simply too dry for these glaciers to exist under normal Holocene conditions," he [Georg Kaser] emailed.

Go down a few paragraphs

That's because the atmosphere around Kilimanjaro doesn't contain enough water to sustain large ice bodies, according to Kaser's research. Climate change might have affected the precipitation patterns in the region, but local temperatures don't appear to be a driving factor in the glacier retreat.

So the guy has research that states climate change has possibly affected the precipitation patterns which leads to loss of the glacer, however he stated that the loss has not been due to climate change. Hmmm...

Now ok I know how you are going to come at this. This was a mistake. The reporter misquoted him. The story lines should have read as such "According to our understanding, the Kibo glaciers shrink and will disappear not because of global warming conditions but ...

However this is now what was reported. This is not conclusive evidece of lack of MMGW, but hints at MAN MADE CLIMATE CHANGE.

IF you BOTHERED TO READ . . . THE REST OF THE STORY, you would have looked at the paragraph that stated HOW the glaciers got there in the first place.

"The much less clear question is on how the glaciers came to exist, and there are indications that a series of exceptional wet years allowed them to build up during the first half of the 19th century," Kaser wrote.

There, he is referring to the "little Ice Age" of the early 19th century. Look up the year without a summer (1816 I believe) for more information.

and how about this part of the article:

It is simply too dry for these glaciers to exist under normal Holocene conditions,

Wobblier, the fact is . . . at some point there were UNUSUALLY WET years at some point which were the CAUSE of the glaciers.

NORMAL (where you inserted of your own free will the term climate change) Normal HALOCENE conditions are not wet enough. So the weather at present there is NORMAL. What was the cause of the unusual event that triggered the unusually wet period that gave birth to the glaciers?

Well, Halocene covers the period of earth's history 12,000 BP (before present) which would be (if you are Christian and believe the scriptures are truthful) some 6,000 years longer than man has been here.

I throw out that possibly those waters are from the flood of Noah's day, but that really isn't so important to this discussion.

I just had to bait you to give you the chance to hang yourself with the MMGW tag that SOOOoooo belongs to you.

Mr Chad, it is so funny how you must resort to name calling against those who have differing oppinions than you and that you find it necessary to do to try to prove your point. Now if you would do a little more research into this subject you would know the BIGGER picture.

Now lets see what you got right. Yes the Halocene began around 12,000 years BP. So we have that established (I am not going to get into the Noah debate as that would be for the now dead religious thread) Now Ice Cores were compleated on the glacer at Mt. Kilimanjaro (Mt. K.). These ice cores found that the glacer age of 11,700 years aka 11,700 years BP. So they formed only 300 years about after the Halocene began. So these Glacers were around BEFORE the Little Ice Age which happend 500 to 200 years before present. If you would happen to like to know the Little Ice Age started in the 15th century and lasted until the 19th century. And you want to beleive that all that glacer fell in only 300 years?

So lets use the drought that is going on. Well the Glacer survived three long droughts. They happend about 8.3, 5.2, and 4 thousand
years BP. One of the droughts was a big one. It has been deemed the first dark age and ended the Late Bronze Age. This drought lasted 300 years. Yet as you will see below. This glacer has lost a significant amount of size in less than 100 years.

Next lets look at the percent loss of the glacer over the years. From 1912 to 2011 the glacer has lost more than 80% of the ice cover. The years of 1912-1953 there was about 1% annual loss, but from 1989-2007 there was about 2.5% annual loss. But a significant amout of the ice was lost from 2000 until the study in 2007. From 2000 to 2007 about 26% of the glacer was lost.

Here is a study of the ice cores http://www.geo.umass.edu/climate/dou...etal_sci02.pdf

So my good sir, Please think that you have baited me when you have not. You have yet to do more indepth research into a subject other than toat arround a news article.

[Chadeaux]

Wasn't there a bunch of "umass.edu" emails included in Climategate? Oh no, they were just cited as a source in those emails.

Let's try a SERIOUS source, shall we?

[werleibr]

Wasn't there a bunch of "umass.edu" emails included in Climategate? Oh no, they were just cited as a source in those emails.

Let's try a SERIOUS source, shall we?

"nothing in the stolen material undermines the scientific consensus that climate change is happening and that humans are to blame." http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...ng-climategate and no umass was not part of the climategate fack. the only college mentioned was penn state... Start getting facts and not accusations.

[Chadeaux]

Wasn't there a bunch of "umass.edu" emails included in Climategate? Oh no, they were just cited as a source in those emails.

Let's try a SERIOUS source, shall we?

"nothing in the stolen material undermines the scientific consensus that climate change is happening and that humans are to blame." http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...ng-climategate and no umass was not part of the climategate fack. the only college mentioned was penn state... Start getting facts and not accusations.

Firstly, it was once a scientific consensus that the earth is flat. Facts --- and the sound reasoning of one person who had read the Bible and understood it explained that the earth is a circle --- debunked that belief. It was also consensus that the sun revolved around the earth . . . the SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS of that day and time . . . has since been proven wrong. And don't go confusing religious leaders with Biblical fact. They are many times completely at odds with each other.

As for Umass.edu, I went to Google, and used the search terms "umas.edu" + climategate (link below) and got a nice list of links:

https://www.google.com/search?num=10...8l5.3.3.6l17l0

Who is this "Raymond S. Bradley, Distinguished Professor and Head of Department, Department of Geosciences, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA" then? He's all over the place in the FOIA releases.

No Umass is up to its eyeballs in this cesspool of lies.

[21stTNCav]

Ummm sorry, but many scientist in the United States working for a myriad web of public universities used the Data from Britian. Penn State, University of Virginia, The University of Chicago, The University of Mass, The University of Texas, The University of Tennessee Martin, Memphis State University, The University of Michigan, Boston College ................And the hits keep coming. This does not even take into account all of the secondary Universities. Over 200 institutions here in the United States have used the bogus Mann data and world wide the number tops 2000 instutions.
Sorry, but Penn State WAS NOT the only one, just the most cupable!!

[Chadeaux]

Start getting facts and not accusations.

I'm with you. Let's stop the accusations, assumptions, blatant lies, etc. In fact, let's just hang the MMGW SOBS (Sons Of Buzzard Scat) and be done with the effort to explain the facts to a bunch of biased, money grubbing, holier-than-thou pseudoscientists and their minions.

Truth is, MMGW is a scam that grew out of the same group of hippies that brought us legalized abortion, Queer/Gay/Lesbian Marriage, Chuck Manson, Jimmy Carter and Algore. (Sorry for the insult Chuckie, but it's true!)

Ummm sorry, but many scientist in the United States working for a myriad web of public universities used the Data from Britian. Penn State, University of Virginia, The University of Chicago, The University of Mass, The University of Texas, The University of Tennessee Martin, Memphis State University, The University of Michigan, Boston College ................And the hits keep coming. This does not even take into account all of the secondary Universities. Over 200 institutions here in the United States have used the bogus Mann data and world wide the number tops 2000 instutions.
Sorry, but Penn State WAS NOT the only one, just the most cupable!!

Thanks for backing me up TN. Of course, we all know the simple mathematical formula: (Garbage In) = (Garbage Out)

So, therefore, if (Mann Data)=(Garbage In) then (MMGW)=(Garbage Out)

[werleibr]

Check out the Global Ice Mass Change Video Nasa has created. It shows where all the Mountain Glacers are in the world and then creates a color graph showing the amount of water equivilant loss that has occured. You will witness more deep blue to purple (which is loss) than you will of red color (which is gain). At 1:26 you will see antartica, You will witness a greater loss of Ice mass than you will of Ice gain.

http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/video...a_id=131826971

[Chadeaux]

What is interesting about that is the fact that the NASA data has most likely been corrupted as the U.S. government has fallen for the MMGW line hook line and sinker.

Now, before NASA and Uncle Sam had it removed from Google Earth, you used to be able to "time travel" to times as far back as we have been surveying the ground from airplanes. Greenland was a prime example because it was extensively photographed during WWII.

Before the images were pulled**, you could plainly see that the ice caps were SMALLER in 1940's Greenland than the are in present day Greenland.

**CORRECTION Images not pulled, looked in the wrong menu item for historical imagery. Go to it yourself and take a look.

[21stTNCav]

HMMMMM, the GRACE mission. Did you know? The Grace mission explains itself how most of the artic ice has been lost not due to melting but to hyper salinization by oscicilation of curents removing fresh water from the area.
http://www.csr.utexas.edu/grace/

Did you know? The University of Texas at Austin and Washington State were hugely involved in this project along with instutions in Germany and they all have scientist working on this who at one time were involved in climate gate indirectly. Scientist like Dr Byron Tapley.
http://science.nasa.gov/missions/grace/

[Dave44]

The problem is the corruption involved. We all know it is corrupt! It is a blatant attempt to separate Americans from cash and get them used to being a third world country. Because leveling the playing field means that you don't let the others come up, you make the top come down.

http://www.climatedepot.com/a/12797/...Global-Warming

Here is a nice ditty.
"Giaever announced his resignation from APS was due to the group's belief in man-made global warming fears. Giaever explained in his email to APS: "In the APS it is ok to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible? The claim (how can you measure the average temperature of the whole earth for a whole year?) is that the temperature has changed from ~288.0 to ~288.8 degree Kelvin in about 150 years, which (if true) means to me is that the temperature has been amazingly stable, and both human health and happiness have definitely improved in this 'warming' period."

Giaever says that incontrovertible is not a "scientific" word. So this word is only used to sway the masses with emotional propaganda. They will feel smarter if they can then repeat it.

[Chadeaux]

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”

“Think of the press as a great keyboard on which the government can play.”

Both quotes from the same man. Joseph Goebbels . . . Adolf Hitler's Minister of Propaganda.

[werleibr]

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”

“Think of the press as a great keyboard on which the government can play.”

Both quotes from the same man. Joseph Goebbels . . . Adolf Hitler's Minister of Propaganda.

I like how you all still beleive in the Climate gate Scandle. Have you not seen the latest research done by one that was funded by oil companies. He found that they did not fudge or missrepresent the data. He found that they reported the Land temperatures acuratly and that the earth's land had warmed. He is now going through the ocean data.

So in other words, So far the climategate scandle is starting to fall apart, the main gripe about data being compromised has been found to be incorrect.

Quote from Richard Muller in Wall Street Journal. Richard is the guy who talked about the hockey stick graph controversy. He is a big Skeptic of Global Warming. Also all people of the supposed e-mails have been cleared of any wrong doing. There was no evidence of number fudging.

When we began our study, we felt that skeptics had raised legitimate issues, and we didn't know what we'd find. Our results turned out to be close to those published by prior groups. We think that means that those groups had truly been very careful in their work, despite their inability to convince some skeptics of that. They managed to avoid bias in their data selection, homogenization and other corrections.
Global warming is real. Perhaps our results will help cool this portion of the climate debate. How much of the warming is due to humans and what will be the likely effects? We made no independent assessment of that

Why does everything have to be a controversy with you guys? The science backs up the earth is warming. Now lets see how well everyones reading comprehension is on this next sentence. Global warming is not 100% man made, from what I can gather is that the earth was going to enter a warming trend, HOWEVER, us humans have acted as a catylist to this warming trend and caused it to come faster than what would have naturally happend, and will cause the earth to heat up to a larger degree that what would have naturally happend before the earth went back into a cool period.

[GrayCloud]

Those with small minds tend to only follow and will believe those that intend to decieve.
Ain't no Man Made Global Warming.
I did not own a diesel truck 600 years ago or a million years ago and nor did any of you.
Nuff Said.

[werleibr]

Those with small minds tend to only follow and will believe those that intend to decieve.
Ain't no Man Made Global Warming.
I did not own a diesel truck 600 years ago or a million years ago and nor did any of you.
Nuff Said.

And there was no Murcury or other heavy metals found in water systems or animals before man started with mining.

[Dave44]

Those with small minds tend to only follow and will believe those that intend to decieve.
Ain't no Man Made Global Warming.
I did not own a diesel truck 600 years ago or a million years ago and nor did any of you.
Nuff Said.

And there was no Murcury or other heavy metals found in water systems or animals before man started with mining.

C'mon Werl, you cannot prove that.
Nor can it be proven that man has sped up or slowed down global warming. Many of the scientists that were working for governments are backing out of the theory of global warming.

[21stTNCav]

Those with small minds tend to only follow and will believe those that intend to decieve.
Ain't no Man Made Global Warming.
I did not own a diesel truck 600 years ago or a million years ago and nor did any of you.
Nuff Said.

And there was no Murcury or other heavy metals found in water systems or animals before man started with mining.

Hmmmm, all inclusive statements, I love em. "And there was NO Murcury (what the heck is murcury?? Just kidding, we all know what you meant to spell.) or other heavy metals found in the water systems or animals before man started with mining.".
Oh Weib, you know you stuck you foot in it right? No Mercury or heavy metals?? NONE?? Weib, man may have polluted the environment, a lot in most cases, but for God's sake you can die in certain areas of the Earth if you hang out for 2 or three days just from natural Radioactive Radium deposits. Did you ever hear of the La Brea Tar pits?? You know....Tar, natural deposits of petrolium that killed thousands of animals that wandered into them. Did you know that in some areas near volcanoes in Hawaii you will die quickly if you walk into a depression? You see the NATURALLY occurring CO2 gasses (Carbon Dioxide for those who might know.) tend to hang out in low areas. Walk into these areas and brother you better get out quick before you asphyxiate. I could go on and on about the naturally occurring elements and phenomena where nature according to the criteria of "Scientist" pollutes the Earth itslef. Funny, nobody ever calls the EPA to report those Tar pits in Los Angles so that they can be declared a SUPERFUND site and Cleaned the heck up!!!!

[Chadeaux]

And there was no Murcury or other heavy metals found in water systems or animals before man started with mining.

Now that's funny, and I don't care who you are!

Now, bubba, my grandfather once took me to a place where the little bits of "quicksilver" (as he called them) were literally leaking out of the ground. He's been dead since '71, but his father (died at 110 in 1969) showed it to him when he was a little boy. And my great great grandfather showed it to my great grandfather, so I'm pretty sure these spots were leaking mercury into the swamps were before the turn of the century . . . the 19th century that is . . . and add to that, any mining in the swamps of south Louisiana at that time, with the technology available to them then, would have only produced water back in the early 19th century . . . so, therefore, your info is flawed.