| We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration will allow you to join in the discussion which is amazingly free of personal rancor and trolls! We are currently looking for posters from both the left and the right who have a demonstrated capacity to discuss fervently without letting personalities get in the way. Is that you? We need more staff. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| It ain't settled science! | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Dec 10 2007, 09:53 PM (2,128 Views) | |
| Post #1 Dec 10 2007, 09:53 PM |
|
|
According to MetSul, a Brazilian weather channel, the northern polar icecap is nearly "normal" in size and the southern polar ice cap has grown since last year. Is this true, Mr. Gore? Because, those statements and your claims that the polar ice caps could be gone in seven years are just a bit at odds with each other. |
Administrator
  ![]](http://z2.ifrm.com/static/1/pip_r.png)
|
 
|
 |
| Post #2 Dec 11 2007, 06:46 AM |
|
|
Just look at the satellite images of the North Pole. The polar ice caps are clearly shrinking. http://www.canadiangeographic.ca/Magazine/so04/alacarte.asp# "As global warming causes temperatures to rise in the oceans, glaciers and icecaps are melting more rapidly. One particular ice shelf in Antarctica, the northern section of the Larson B shelf, collapsed in recent years. Scientists got a rude awakening when they realized how fast the ice shelf could disintegrate. The polar ice cap is disappearing at an astonishing rate as well. It is dissolving at 9% per decade. This aspect of global warming is a definite cause for alarm. In the last 40-50 years, the thickness of ice in the Arctic has decreased by 40%." http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/...articleID=44416 One year's growth does not make a trend. BTW - Do you have a link to the study or a news article? I'm curious to read more about it. |
Civilian
|
|
|
|
| Post #3 Dec 11 2007, 07:03 AM |
|
|
The point is that as much as people can show evidence of shrinkage, others can show evidence of growth. (Like the title says, it ain't settled science!) The ice caps go through annual cycles, decades-long cycles, century-long cycles, millennia-long cycles, etc. The difference is that some are not using some transient changes this constantly-changing evidence to further the arrogant idea that man can possibly be that influential over the Earth. Of course, those who are debunking the man- is-causing-devastating-global-warming myth are not trying to control the behavior of others. The whole global warming culture is a huge power grab. Succumb to it at your own peril--and the peril of all others. |
Administrator
|
|
|
|
| Post #4 Dec 11 2007, 10:20 AM |
|
What risk is there to reducing energy consumption, conserving water, and protecting our environment? You make it sound like God's going to strike us in the head with a lightning bolt if I use a compact flourescent lightbulb. |
Civilian
|
|
|
|
| Post #5 Dec 11 2007, 10:24 AM |
|
| I'm sure you can find some scientists who think the world is flat too! |
Civilian
|
|
|
|
| Post #6 Dec 11 2007, 05:32 PM |
|
What risk? None whatsoever. However, that is not all that we are being asked to do. We are being asked to turn over major portions of our sovereignty in submitting to the Kyoto Protocols or in accepting all the suggested actions that the IPCC (unnecessarily) calls for. I believe in reasonable environmentalism. I don't go in for wacko predictions, like those from former Vice President Gore and from the IPCC. That kind of science is arrogant about what man has done and what man can do. That kind of science requires over-blown one-world solutions to non-existent or grossly exaggerated problems. The ridiculous notion that you will be struck down for using a CFLB is yours, not mine. Nothing I have ever said has ever implied that I think anything of the sort. As a matter of fact, I use CFLBs. I am continually replacing my incandescents as they blow out. I recycle a lot. I am not anti-green. I am anti-wacko-green, like global warming, Kyoto, IPCC, and the insistence that the science is settled. It isn't. |
Administrator
|
|
|
|
| Post #7 Dec 11 2007, 05:35 PM |
|
I am sure that I cannot. However, I am also sure that that statement was not meant to be taken literally. I am sure that it was meant to ridicule scientists who do not agree with global warming activist scientists. |
Administrator
|
|
|
|
| Post #8 Dec 11 2007, 09:41 PM |
|
|
How many State of California regulations does it take to change a light bulb? Three—one to require that you change the light bulb, one to warn you that changing it could cause cancer, and one to ban disposal of the old light bulb. |
Civilian
|
|
|
|
| Post #9 Dec 11 2007, 11:01 PM |
|
|
More "unsettling" news: Global warming has the Sun's fingerprints all over it. |
Administrator
|
|
|
|
| Post #10 Dec 12 2007, 12:13 AM |
|
| The last paragraph of that article was very telling. |
Civilian
|
|
|
|
| Post #11 Dec 12 2007, 06:32 AM |
|
|
I thought that posts from activist groups were frowned upon? http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title...st_News_Service Added another link - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CNSNews.com |
Civilian
|
|
|
|
| Post #12 Dec 12 2007, 06:44 AM |
|
|
From the article... "There is little point to try to control emission of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide, which means that all of this legislation and all of these efforts to find substitutes for fossil fuels are pointless, useless and very, very expensive," he said. How short sighted can this scientist be? Take global warming out of the equation for a moment. We still have finite resources of fossil fuels. Many of them will run out within a couple generations. The process needs to start NOW in order to make the switch to non-fossil fuel based energy sources. |
Civilian
|
|
|
|
| Post #13 Dec 12 2007, 01:10 PM |
|
CNS is not an "activist" group. It is a news agency, with an admitted conservative bent. The only difference between it and CBS and CNN is that they do not admit their liberal bent. MSNBC at least has the guts to admit its liberal leanings. BTW, who watches "SourceWatch"? Pots and kettles here. The Wikipedia reference is useful, as it seems not to have a bias against CNS and is willing to present the facts. If you find any facts in the CNS story that you think have been "cooked," feel free to point them out. I don't see any, but feel free to pick the facts apart. I used CNS because they often present the stories that have been totally ignored by the MSM (as in this case). If you can find the story in the MSM, please, post the link. But, the fact that the MSM is ignoring this story, and I had to use CNS, just illustrates the bias in the MSM when scientists challenge the Global Warming Orthodoxy. |
Administrator
|
|
|
|
| Post #14 Dec 12 2007, 01:14 PM |
|
Now, there, you have a point! I think we should move from fossil fuels--just not in a panic mode. I think the greens need to ease up on their opposition to nuclear power. IMNTBHO, the best current solution to our need for energy is nuclear-generated electricity and electrically-produced hydrogen for cars. |
Administrator
|
|
|
|
| Post #15 Dec 26 2007, 09:51 PM |
|
|
Like I said, it ain't settled science. As much as Al Gore and his followers declare the debate to be over, it ain't. Cal Thomas on the 400 |
Administrator
|
|
|
|
| Post #16 Dec 29 2007, 02:44 PM |
|
| Reopened after splitting out the "solar distraction." |
Administrator
|
|
|
|
| Post #17 Feb 26 2008, 08:11 PM |
|
From today's Grapevine:
|
Administrator
|
|
|
|
| Post #18 Feb 27 2008, 07:20 PM |
|
More from the Grapevine:
|
Administrator
|
|
|
|
| Post #19 Mar 5 2008, 02:07 PM |
|
|
Let's look at the data. They do indeed show that global temperatures last month were lower than they have been in several years. For example, here is a graph from the UK's Met Office Hadley Centre, showing monthly global temperatures from 1850 to January 2008 (the raw data are described here). http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3123/229666..._4f317a8a0c.jpg January 2008 (circled in red) is quite low relative to other months the past decade or so. But look at all the previous months that were colder than January 2008 (below the red line). By the same argument these folks are trying to make, global warming stopped in (for example) March 1976, December 1984, November 1992, and February 1994. The point is that global warming is a long-term process, occurring over decades. It's not something that is proven or disproven by any single month. |
Civilian
|
|
|
|
| Post #20 Mar 5 2008, 06:12 PM |
|
|
Actually, the point is that there is no global warming, just changes in the amount of energy that the Sun is imparting on the Earth due to changes in its activity. Normal changes. Natural changes, not man-made. Cyclical changes. Changes which have been historically more stark without wiping out continents and mankind. |
Administrator
|
|
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
 Join the millions that use us for their forum communities. Create your own forum today. Learn More · Sign-up Now |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · General, in the News · Next Topic » |
5:26 PM May 20