California-Sized Area of Ice Melts in Antarctica

RSS
Email

0 Kudo

Author	Comment
jimmiller46	Re: thinking.....	#61	[-]
Posts: 680 (05/20/07 07:56:43) Syndicalist Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	not2 I asked the same question back on May 17,still haven't seen an answer. There has been no mention of rising water anywhere in the world by any media that I've seen. The mayors of NYC, Miami, London,and any town in a low-lying coastal area ought to be jacking up buildings, moving their people,etc. But I've heard nothing. Where's all the water going?
ExplodingToad	Re: thinking.....	#62	[-]
Posts: 287 (05/20/07 08:45:26) NASCAR househusband Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	*Quote:* There is zero credible evidence that GW is caused by ANYthing other than human activity. Um...how about the Sun?
Birthmark	Re: thinking.....	#63	[-]
Posts: 91 (05/20/07 10:18:48) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	*Quote:* There are certainties in science and math. In math, yes. In science, no. Certainty in science would require us to know everything that can be known about something, including that it will hold true under all circumstances past, present, and future. That is clearly an impossibility. There are many things we treat as certain for the sake of convenience, and because we have never seen an exception. But that in way means that they are certainties. Allan, *Quote:* Again, instead of attacking the messenger, you should be reinforcing your argument. My spelling is terrible, but at 60 WPM, I really don't care. Sloppiness is a habit that is usually deep and applies to many areas of one's life. It would certainly account for your bizarre statements. But that aside, if you are going to call someone "ignorant" misspelling the word is just too ironic for me to pass up. *Quote:* You problem is you are looking for spelling errors, instead of looking at data error. When you don't have a case, I guess that is all you can do. Well, except for that 18 page summary I linked in my previous post. But continue to play make believe. It appears to be a way of life for you. That and sloppiness. *Quote:* I will be glad to use your share. And all this melting going on, new york should be under at least 2' of water, same with Biloxi, Mississippi and New Orleans. There you go playing make believe again. Show me a scientific paper that says any of those cities should be under two feet of water. (Excuse New Orleans which is below sea level and has to be pumped out and fortified to exist, as Hurricane Katrina amply demonstrated. But that has nothing to do with GW.) *Quote:* But looking at the air photos that I had to do working in biloxi, the coastline has not shifted one foot, and the water is at the same level as 50 years ago. Then you're not very observant. Sea level rose at an average of 1-2 mm/year throughout the 20th century. You might also look here: Disappearing Islands *Quote:* I mean, half the glaciers have dumped into the sea, where did the water go? There you go again. Making things up. I guess you honestly believe that rhetoric trumps facts. Weird. *Quote:* Um...how about the Sun? How about the Sun? Are you trying to say something?
ExplodingToad	Re: thinking.....	#64	[-]
Posts: 287 (05/20/07 12:09:05) NASCAR househusband Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	*Quote:* How about the Sun? Are you trying to say something? Yes. It has a power greater than ourselvs. Mayhaps it also has a greater inpact on global weather patterns that humanity?
Birthmark	Re: thinking.....	#65	[-]
Posts: 91 (05/20/07 12:46:44) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Mayhaps it does. Do you have any evidence that some change on the Sun has caused global warming, or are you swinging a dead cat and hoping to hit something?
ExplodingToad	Re: thinking.....	#66	[-]
Posts: 287 (05/20/07 13:33:53) NASCAR househusband Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Indeed I can point to evidence that the Sun is the main culprit for GW (not that I believe that man has no effect). As Aspong has pointed out. I posted a list in my Other Voices on Global Warming thread. The list of 70 scientists is not of my own making but, I did provide links to works and articles connected to those scientists. Feel free to take a look.
Birthmark	Re: thinking.....	#67	[-]
Posts: 91 (05/20/07 13:55:34) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	So, you're not going to present any evidence; just a laundry list of guys who said things? And a long list of links that I'm supposed to go through? Not likely. Post the most persuasive piece of evidence that you have and I'll take a look. But I'm not going to read 900 pages of rhetorical nonsense printed in the popular press. Sorry.
ExplodingToad	Re: thinking.....	#68	[-]
Posts: 287 (05/20/07 16:19:00) NASCAR househusband Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	*Quote:* Bm: There is zero credible evidence that GW is caused by ANYthing other than human activity. Please read this and this and this *Quote:* So, you're not going to present any evidence; just a laundry list of guys who said things? And a long list of links that I'm supposed to go through? Not likely. As a man predisposed to sloth, I thought it would be a good service to compile a list of scientists with opposing views. As you pointed out, such slueth is time-consuming. I wanted to save the rest of you some trouble. Argueing that reading a few items from a list is too much trouble does not wash with me. As the saying goes; you can lead a horse to water but, you cannot force him to drink. *Quote:* I'm not going to read 900 pages of rhetorical nonsense printed in the popular press. I did. It toke me several days and many more hours to come up with this info. If you are going to debate an issue, it is a good idea to read up on the "opposing" POV. Yes, it was a PITA. That's the world of research for you.
Florida Jeff	Re: thinking.....	#69	[-]
Posts: 2125 (05/20/07 20:55:34) Unindicted Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Toad, As a person with a strong scientific mind, please answer the following: A horse, a cow, and a deer all eat grass, the same stuff. Yet a deer excretes little pellets, while a cow turns out a flat patty, and a horse produces clumps of dried grass. Why? Jeff
not2serious	Re: thinking.....	#70	[-]
Posts: 1133 (05/20/07 21:02:13) Oracle Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	*Quote:* A horse, a cow, and a deer all eat grass, the same stuff. Yet a deer excretes little pellets, while a cow turns out a flat patty, and a horse produces clumps of dried grass. Why? Jeff, you missed the point here. It is the billions of dollars in federal grants that count. I mean if there were no money in it, no scientist would ever bring it up. But billion of dollars to study why the problems exists, what effect it has on civilization all are federal grants. Federal grants? priceless. Allan
not2serious	Re: thinking.....	#71	[-]
Posts: 1133 (05/20/07 21:18:56) Oracle Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	*Quote:* Sloppiness is a habit that is usually deep and applies to many areas of one's life. It would certainly account for your bizarre statements. Yes, but stupidity goes all the way to the bone! But that aside, if you are going to call someone "ignorant" misspelling the word is just too ironic for me to pass up. I have a secretary who is paid $30,000 a year to spell correctly and fix my mistakes. I make $150,000+ on average a year to make sure building are correct. I have been in business 30 years and surprise, none of my buildings or conveyor systems have ever failed. So you are saying that you would make me a good secretary? I don't think so, your qualifications probably are minimal at best. I need a person who is my secretary who can think for themselves, not a GW tree hugger who gets told what to thing and say!!!! *Quote:* Well, except for that 18 page summary I linked in my previous post. But continue to play make believe. It appears to be a way of life for you. That and sloppiness. Beats being stupid like you, and a sucker for every scam that comes along. I have learned that people can justify ANYTHING (including me). But we are right back to you should not be TRYING to insult me or any messenger, you should be reinforcing your argument. Apparently you are capable of neither! *Quote:* There you go playing make believe again. Show me a scientific paper that says any of those cities should be under two feet of water. (Excuse New Orleans which is below sea level and has to be pumped out and fortified to exist, as Hurricane Katrina amply demonstrated. But that has nothing to do with GW.) Wait, where is all the water going? From all the different meltings going on, the water has to go somewhere. With the @#%$ the GW nuts are claiming, it HAS to be up 2' at least! *Quote:* Then you're not very observant. Sea level rose at an average of 1-2 mm/year throughout the 20th century. You might also look here: Disappearing Islands All of the maps I looked at while working on the 100 year flood planes in the biloxi to City of bay st louis, none of them have changed significantly in the last 50 years. Just were is all this water going? *Quote:* There you go again. Making things up. I guess you honestly believe that rhetoric trumps facts. Weird. No, Just like WMDs were stated to exist and NEVER WERE, I want proof. With all the melting, the sea should have risen AT LEAST 2'. But not with the photos I worked with. Before the war, I argued with many many people on these boards that they did not exist, and I was right. And for the same reasons I give you that GW is not raising sea levels for all the water they say has melted. *Quote:* How about the Sun? Are you trying to say something? Since there is global warming on mars and other solar system bodies, and there are no humans there to do it, it appears our sun, the giver of all life on earth, the provider of warmth and the key to civilizeation and life itself growing on earth, probably is the answer. allan
Luck of the Draw	??????	#72	[-]
Posts: 2213 (05/20/07 22:38:02) Proto-imperialist Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	*Quote:* All of the maps I looked at while working on the 100 year flood planes in the biloxi to City of bay st louis, none of them have changed significantly in the last 50 years. Just were is all this water going? Yes....just where does that much water go. Grew up Michigan/Wisconsin....Great Lakes. Water level fluctuations. Some years your beach could go for miles before hitting water or water depth decent for swimming. Other years, people were hauling in stone/boulders as water encrouching their decks/porches, yards, crawl spaces etc. Understood the water levels/cycles....yet why the drop? I have difficulty with it simply being "evaporation"
Birthmark	Re: thinking.....	#73	[-]
Posts: 91 (05/21/07 09:19:34) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Toad, From your first link: *Quote:* But the most striking feature, he says, is that looking at the past 1,150 years the Sun has never been as active as it has been during the past 60 years. I respond with this. The most important portion of which says, " Over the past 20 years, however, the number of sunspots has remained roughly constant, yet the average temperature of the Earth has continued to increase." Your second link gave me an error message and said try again later. I will...if I remember. Your third link suffers from the same defect as the first one, imo: Sunspot activity has leveled off, why is the temp still rising? It's also very new, so I'll keep my out to see what qualified scientists have to say and look for the study online. *Quote:* If you are going to debate an issue, it is a good idea to read up on the "opposing" POV. I had read a great deal of it up until about two years ago, when I realizd that the anti-AGWers were full of...um, stove top stuffing. Prior to that, I figured global warming for just so much apocalypse talk (which is a disservice that the eco-loonies do to the serious subject.) In fact, I was arguing your side when I finally gave it up as bad science. And anti-AGW is bad science. If they ever come up with anything worthwhile, I'll swap sides in a heartbeat. I don't expect that. Allan: *Quote:* Jeff, you missed the point here. It is the billions of dollars in federal grants that count. I mean if there were no money in it, no scientist would ever bring it up. But billion of dollars to study why the problems exists, what effect it has on civilization all are federal grants. Ah, a conspiracy nut. Kewl! *Quote:* I have a secretary who is paid $30,000 a year to spell correctly and fix my mistakes. I make $150,000+ on average a year to make sure building are correct. I have been in business 30 years and surprise, none of my buildings or conveyor systems have ever failed. Says you. But given that your standard of evidence is based on your over-active endocrine system...well, I don't trust your word. *Quote:* But we are right back to you should not be TRYING to insult me or any messenger, you should be reinforcing your argument. Apparently you are capable of neither! Actually, you never made it past my first three questions. Apparently, I'm smarter than you...which is really sad cause I ain't exactly Einstein, y'know? ;) *Quote:* But we are right back to you should not be TRYING to insult me or any messenger, you should be reinforcing your argument. Apparently you are capable of neither! Well, a good deal of it appears to have collected in your head. You should probably see a doctor, or two if your vision is doubled. *Quote:* With all the melting, the sea should have risen AT LEAST 2'. Says who? You're hallucinating and asking me to account for it. All I can say is buy your mushrooms from reputable grocers. *Quote:* Since there is global warming on mars and other solar system bodies, and there are no humans there to do it, it appears our sun, the giver of all life on earth, the provider of warmth and the key to civilizeation and life itself growing on earth, probably is the answer. Do you honestly not see the grotesque inadequacy of that assertion? I'll be happy to explain it, but it's simple enough that you should be able to figure it out for yourself.
Manruss	Re: thinking.....	#74	[-]
Posts: 1168 (05/21/07 11:56:09) Unindicted Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	*Quote:* aspong: Out of at least 9 contributors, Carl Wunsch disagrees with the hypothesis of the film and Eigil Friis-Christensen disagrees with its accuracy. As for the way the film is portrayed, it was made by someone similarly skilled as those who made Al Gore's film. But rather than highlight the dramatic and "for effect" pieces in Gore's film instead the GW movement holds it symbolicly high. Why are Gore's inaccurate dramatizations given a pass? First of all, nobody gives Gore's film a pass. There are some points of an Inconvenient Truth that are inaccurate. They have been exposed by the same scientists you seem to think are in collusion to propagate the idea of manmade global warming at the expense of the truth (a conspiracy for which there is no evidence, by the way.) Secondly, the difference is that this documentary purposely took their contributor's testimony out of context to make it appear that they were saying something they were not. There's a world of difference between containing some inaccuracy and being fundamentally intellectually dishonest. *Quote:* aspong: What a telling comment that is. You obviously haven't watched it. Okay, here's a link to Part 1 of the documentary, containing the first nine minutes. I defy anyone to tell me this is anything other than a collage of five second soundbites and creatively interspersed footage of hippies. Here's my challenge to you: find me the one scientific argument made in this piece and post what it is and where in the 9+ minute timeline that it occurs. Happy hunting. *Quote:* aspong: Red herring. It's not the feedback loops that are being questioned. Just as global warming isn't in question. It's the nature of their effect etc that's being questioned, not their existence. It's not a red herring. If you acknowledge the existence of a feedback loop then you acknowledge that higher temperatures preceding higher CO2 levels does NOTHING to undermine the evidence for anthropogenic global warming. *Quote:* aspong: Stick to the argument. Using such a strong emotive as 9/11 is not comparing apples with oranges. But then again, the whole GW thing runs on emotives. I didn't use 9/11 as an emotive and frankly, I think it's a little bizarre that you would take it that way. I was merely making the point that having a lot of links at your disposal doesn't mean you have quality of evidence. That is determined by exposing the evidence for your argument to the fires of scientific peer review. Something the global warming deniers seem curiously reticent to do. ----------------------- Visit my weblog!
aspong	Re: thinking.....	#75	[-]
Posts: 705 (05/21/07 12:19:21) Ho Ho, it is to laugh Moderator Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Manruss. 9 minutes? When I first watched it, I took a notepad and pen. I wrote many notes on it, to discredit it. There was a lot of things I noted against it, expecting the whole thing to be a botched sceptics piece. I rewound several parts, just to be sure I accurately noted the parts that were obviously wrong, and other bits for further investigation. I was expecting to go back to the person who suggested it, with a long list of its aggregious faults, and early on the list looked promising. By about 9 minutes I was ready to dismiss, plenty of notes in hand, but I wanted to give my obviously naive friend full value for his dime, so I continued watching. After about 30 minutes, I started listening to what was being said. Sure, it was a documentary from a guy who likes to emote. But even without all the window dressing, the core arguments made sense, to my shock and dismay. You can't possibly get that from 9 minutes. If you understood film-making, you'd realize that the first part is about dramatically setting the stage for the rest of the movie. It's not a science piece. If it was, you'd only ever see it in a classroom. It's an emotive piece which has a good amount of science in it. You just have to sift. 9 minutes? Thanks for confirming my observation.
aspong	Re: thinking.....	#76	[-]
Posts: 705 (05/21/07 12:22:43) Ho Ho, it is to laugh Moderator Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	*Quote:* I didn't use 9/11 as an emotive and frankly, I think it's a little bizarre that you would take it that way. 9/11 is an emotive and ever will be, in this generation at least. You want to underline a point, use 9/11. It may be chalk and cheese, but the emotiveness of it gets your argument across the line.
Manruss	Re: thinking.....	#77	[-]
Posts: 1168 (05/21/07 13:51:55) Unindicted Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	*Quote:* aspong: If you understood film-making, you'd realize that the first part is about dramatically setting the stage for the rest of the movie. It's not a science piece. If it was, you'd only ever see it in a classroom. It's an emotive piece which has a good amount of science in it. You just have to sift. Right. The first part of any movie is supposed to set the stage for the rest of the movie. Since the first 9 minutes were little more than creative editing, hyperbole and polemic, I knew just what to expect from the rest of the film. I'm glad to see that you're willing to admit that this documentary is not a piece of serious science, though. As for me, I will continue to side with the science. *Quote:* aspong: 9/11 is an emotive and ever will be, in this generation at least. You want to underline a point, use 9/11. It may be chalk and cheese, but the emotiveness of it gets your argument across the line. Whatever. I was talking about 9/11 conspiracy theorists, not 9/11 itself. But if you can't see the numbers 9/11 without bursting into tears, then I can use a wide array of other examples. For example, I could've said that there's no shortages of websites that purporting the existence of Bigfoot, but that doesn't mean their evidence is compelling. ----------------------- Visit my weblog!

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Yuku free message boards

California-Sized Area of Ice Melts in Antarctica

Quick Reply