Talk:Arctic Bridge/Archives/2012

Assessment
I have assessed this as a Stub, as it contains only the basic information on the topic, and of low importance as it is, for now, a purely hypothetical endeavour. Cheers, CP 22:18, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Bad geography

 * ''Churchill is Canada's principal seaport on the Arctic Ocean and has rail and air (but no road) connections to the rest of Canada.

Churchill's on Hudson Bay, which is nowhere near the Arctic Ocean and doesn't even "let out" that way; somewhere else, I think on a US page about a division-point on the Continental Divide in Montana, referring to the "Arctic Ocean drainage" when it's Hudson Bay that's meant. More importantly, I wonder how a bridge from Murmansk would get to Churchill without touching either Greenland or Ellesmere Island first. Is this a legitimate article? A proposed, hypothetical bridge is notable? Especially because there are other more viable proposed bridges, like the Bering Strait Bridge (or tunnel?) supposedlly in the works (finally, after over a century of talking about i).Skookum1 (talk) 21:58, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I see, it's not even a bridge; it's a designated shipping lane only. Tell me, please, why would someone want to ship goods to Churchill when the distance to port in Montreal or New York is closer?Skookum1 (talk) 22:00, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * From what I've read and the people I have talked to, the advantage of Churchill is its proximity to the grain-producing region of the Canadian prairies. Whether or not you would plan to ship anything there, Snookum1, there are people who are investing money in this plan because they think it is a good idea.  And what they call it is "The Arctic Bridge." So there you have it.  A few facts.  A stub article. Nothing to lose any sleep over. Roregan (talk) 04:55, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not on the Arctic Ocean, for one thing; bad geography is bad geography, and shouldn't be in an encyclopedia. The route crosses the Arctic Ocean - but only east of Greenland via the Norwegian Sea (which IIRC is classed as a subsea of the Arctic like the BEaufort).  Hudson Bay ultimately opens ine Atlantic; the Arctic Ocean via a maze of passages through the Arctic Archipelago, yes, but taht's not the route shown.Skookum1 (talk) 05:19, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Your geographic connections are well taken. Although I think it not a bad idea to include some of the geographic information in your note here in the main article, since many do believe Hudson's Bay to be part of the Arctic Ocean.  Your perceptive corrections, if made more widely available, would dispel some of the misinformation that is out there.  As we all know, correcting a mistaken belief is much harder than providing good information in the first place. Roregan (talk) 14:13, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * If someone believes something that's not true, that's not my problem. Misperceptions about Canadian geography abound; if "many believe" that the mountains overlooking Vancouver are the Rocky Mountains, should ,then, articles that mention that use Rocky Mountains instead of the correct "Coast Mountains".  Hudson Bay is, I repeat, NOT, on the Arctic Ocean.  It doesn't matter waht anyone believes.Skookum1 (talk) 15:05, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Geesh Skookum1, why don't you just grow up. Instead of griping here just correct the article as Roregan nicely suggested? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.19.10.169 (talk) 04:59, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ "but it will become more and more viable as the climate warms."

Thats quite an assumption since the climate scientists were found to have fraudulently changed their data to make the world look as if it is warming. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.177.15.250 (talk) 17:15, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

You're incorrect. Climate change is agreed upon by all of the world's major scientific institutions. No serious 'fraudulent' claims have been proven, and any recent controversies have in no way altered the basic underlying consensus of an ongoing upward trend in world temperature caused by human activity. The reduction in sea ice in the Arctic circle is such an inalienable fact that several multi million dollar companies are investing huge amounts of capital in staking a claim to this newly available sea route, as described in the article. Even if you decide to ignore the world's scientists, why do you think these companies would be willing to gamble this amount of resources if the ice was not reducing? Coyote-37 (talk) 13:08, 29 July 2010 (UTC)