Antarctica...

[baddog]

....ice melting. I have no thoughts either way. Just posting a story.

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

[stevenash]

If my memory hasn't failed me, I believe Al Gore declared some time ago that New York City would be under water by 2012.

[Englebert]

Al Gore proclaimed that the debate is over, man-made global is real, the ice caps would be completely gone and the sea levels would rise 8 to 30 feet (amount varied daily) by the year 2015. This study is just copied and pasted from early studies that predicted the same thing. All they did was move up the year. After all, if there is no cataclysmic future on the horizon, how can they justify the billions of dollars of funding. I think this story would fit better in the National Enquirer along side Cruz's five mistresses than on a self-proclaimed "news" organization.

There is plenty of evidence showing glacial growth in other parts of the world. This growth is also progressing at a faster rate than the spots that are showing decline. But somehow these nutjobs proclaim to be scientists. The one study we need right now is one that shows how much money these nutjobs stand to gain if they can convince the public of their gloom and doom theories. Just follow the money.

[Englebert]

19 minutes ago, stevenash said:

If my memory hasn't failed me, I believe Al Gore declared some time ago that New York City would be under water by 2012.

Yes he did. His proclamations varied wildly on the year and amount of sea rise, but he definitely said that most coastal cities would be underwater by now. And the debate is over. LOL. And to think that piece of excrement was a hanging chad away from occupying the White House.

[westend1]

1 hour ago, Englebert said:

Al Gore proclaimed that the debate is over, man-made global is real, the ice caps would be completely gone and the sea levels would rise 8 to 30 feet (amount varied daily) by the year 2015. This study is just copied and pasted from early studies that predicted the same thing. All they did was move up the year. After all, if there is no cataclysmic future on the horizon, how can they justify the billions of dollars of funding. I think this story would fit better in the National Enquirer along side Cruz's five mistresses than on a self-proclaimed "news" organization.

There is plenty of evidence showing glacial growth in other parts of the world. This growth is also progressing at a faster rate than the spots that are showing decline. But somehow these nutjobs proclaim to be scientists. The one study we need right now is one that shows how much money these nutjobs stand to gain if they can convince the public of their gloom and doom theories. Just follow the money.

I am interested in seeing your source for glacial growth.   Every pic I have seen shows glaciers are shrinking.

[Englebert]

3 minutes ago, westend1 said:

I am interested in seeing your source for glacial growth.   Every pic I have seen shows glaciers are shrinking.

No specific source. But here's a start:

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

It's hard to find specific stories I've read because most of them get scrubbed shortly after being published. And I no longer try to find anything on the subject. If you are compelled to study the subject the articles refuting man-made global warming are out there, just buried and not as easily found.

[westend1]

1 minute ago, Englebert said:

No specific source. But here's a start:

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

It's hard to find specific stories I've read because most of them get scrubbed shortly after being published. And I no longer try to find anything on the subject. If you are compelled to study the subject the articles refuting man-made global warming are out there, just buried and not as easily found.

That's it?  No pics, no comparison to the rest of the world?  How old is that stuff?

[Englebert]

Like I said, the stuff is out there, just harder to find. There are plenty of links in the article that can point you to much more, if you are so inclined. Or you can just do a Bing (I don't use Google) search. I could spend hours posting link after link but I have no interest in repeating that.

[Hagar]

Some years back they found a WWII aircraft in the Arctic.  I remember how fascinated I was when they said it was under 18 feet of ice.  Of course that was before Al invented the internet.  The point is, it was growing then, at least UP.  

Now we maybe having global warming, or, as some news stories say, another ice age, but I'm just not convinced man is doing it since we know these things have happened before.   

Besides, as I posted the last time, most everyone has their mind made up, man or Mother Nature, and we're all to smart to change

[RETIREDFAN1]

Just more fear mongering from the fascists to gain more power and $$$$$........

[nappyroots]

The koch brothers have plenty of interesting reads against climate change. Im sure most of their industry is friendly to the environment . They spend lots of money on politicians to help the working class people. 

[shovel]

I'm not doubting that climate change is not, at least partially, a man-made result. Nevertheless,  climate change is not a hot button issue with me. I do what I can; recycle, reuse, and try to leave the Earth as good, or cleaner than the past. The company I work for, and all other American industries that I am aware of, have spent millions of dollars over the years to make our environment safer and to make sure they comply with all of the regulations  our government, the EPA and dozens of other alphabet agencies force us to live by. So why is our government making a big deal out of climate change when we are already doing more than the rest of the world?

Can you honestly answer this question without blaming the Koch brothers? 

[westend1]

18 hours ago, REBgp said:

Some years back they found a WWII aircraft in the Arctic.  I remember how fascinated I was when they said it was under 18 feet of ice.  Of course that was before Al invented the internet.  The point is, it was growing then, at least UP.  

Now we maybe having global warming, or, as some news stories say, another ice age, but I'm just not convinced man is doing it since we know these things have happened before.   

Besides, as I posted the last time, most everyone has their mind made up, man or Mother Nature, and we're all to smart to change

So I gather that you believe that accumulation on top of the plane necessarily means that the ice pack is deeper.(or higher)    Do you know if 18 ft of ice over 75 yrs is enough to offset glaciation?   The pics of major glaciers seem to tell a different story. 

[Hagar]

50 minutes ago, westend1 said:

So I gather that you believe that accumulation on top of the plane necessarily means that the ice pack is deeper.(or higher)    Do you know if 18 ft of ice over 75 yrs is enough to offset glaciation?   The pics of major glaciers seem to tell a different story. 

Seems like that was late 1990's, so @ 50 years.  Have no idea if that's enough to offset any glacier loss.  If you read my post, I admit we may have global warming (or another ice age), I'm just not convinced men are responsible, in either event.  

So let me ask you a question.  Since dinosaur fossils have been found in Montana, Colorado, and South Dakota, do you think the earth has went through periods of global warming before men ever walked on the surface of the planet?

[westend1]

3 minutes ago, REBgp said:

Seems like that was late 1990's, so @ 50 years.  Have no idea if that's enough to offset any glacier loss.  If you read my post, I admit we may have global warming (or another ice age), I'm just not convinced men are responsible, in either event.  

So let me ask you a question.  Since dinosaur fossils have been found in Montana, Colorado, and South Dakota, do you think the earth has went through periods of global warming before men ever walked on the surface of the planet?

Sure, over hundreds of millions of years.  think about how long that is.  Whole mountains dissolve and cover foliage hundreds, if not thousands of feet deep over 100 million years.  Surely you are not comparing that to something that is happening over a 50 year period.

 

[Hagar]

2 minutes ago, westend1 said:

Sure, over hundreds of millions of years.  think about how long that is.  Whole mountains dissolve and cover foliage hundreds, if not thousands of feet deep over 100 million years.  Surely you are not comparing that to something that is happening over a 50 year period.

 

No, I'm old but not that old.   Since the cataclysmic events predicted by many on the left haven't happened as they predicted, it may be a few million years before NYC is underwater.  

Lastly, my original post stated that most had their minds made up, so little is accomplished by discussing it again.  I'm sure I won't change your mind, and you durn sure won't change mine.   

[westend1]

Not trying to change your mind.  Just showing you that your arguments are flawed..   Your mind is certainly made up.  I agree with you there.

[Englebert]

If you want to talk about flawed arguments, let's look at the whole man-made global warming theory. The government says the Earth is warming at a catastrophic rate. The data we used to calculate this has been altered, manipulated and even pulled out of thin air, so no one actually knows if the Earth is really warming. We say the warming is catastrophic but in reality we really don't have a clue as to what the effect will be. Now that we have told you that we all agree on our doomed future, let's figure out the cause. Well...since we have no clue, let's just blame humans. Wait, what. What role does Mother Nature play in this settled science (gotta keep reminding the folks that the debate is over). What effect do volcanos play, thermal sea fissures, glacial sun glare, glacial movements, ever changing (and not understood) weather patterns. Hell, we don't even have a clue as to why lightning appears before and after earthquakes. What about solar flares and mass thermal ejections, sun spots, sun hibernation, changes in Earth's axis tilt, the moon's gravitational pull, and the other countless effects that might contribute to Earth's weather patterns. Forget about all of those things, the debate is settled. Now let's propose plans on how to reverse man's ruinous activities. Any suggestions. No. Let's just throw out some proposals, don't worry about testing them, and throw a lot of money at them.

Before anyone starts throwing money at a problem, there are a few things that need to be addressed. Step 1. Identify the problem. Step 2. Propose solutions to the problems. Step 3. Empirically test these proposals to find best solution. Step 4. Implement solution. The government thinks we are at Step 4, but anyone that has spent one hour or less of research can quickly ascertain that we are at Step 1. And even if we somehow get to the point that we all agree that Step 1 is reality, then we should move to Step 2, not Step 4. Hence, the crisis. Since this so-called warming is so catastrophic, we need to start implementing solutions that we have no idea what effect (good or bad) they will have on the Earth.

Before we uncover the effects of man-made global warming, how about we study why man-made global warming theories are at the forefront of this administrations' list of problems. One theory is that making it into a catastrophic scenario then Americans will be more willing to dish out a lot of money to help clean the environment. Americans will be more agreeable to stricter and stricter EPA regulations. These things will be beneficial to the longevity of man and earth, but to get them implemented we have to create a doomsday scenario. The ends justify the means.

Another theory, and one that runs congruent with the first, is that we need to spend tons of money on third world countries to bring them up to par with us. The American people will not agree to just give our wealth to these countries, so we have to create a doomsday scenario. Trick the people into thinking that the only way to save mankind is to redistribute our wealth to the poorer nations under the guise of saving the planet. The ends justify the means.

I don't have a problem with America investing money in keeping our environment clean. But I do have a problem with our government spending trillions of our hard earned tax payer dollars on a solution to a problem that has never been defined.

 

[nappyroots]

23 hours ago, shovel said:

I'm not doubting that climate change is not, at least partially, a man-made result. Nevertheless,  climate change is not a hot button issue with me. I do what I can; recycle, reuse, and try to leave the Earth as good, or cleaner than the past. The company I work for, and all other American industries that I am aware of, have spent millions of dollars over the years to make our environment safer and to make sure they comply with all of the regulations  our government, the EPA and dozens of other alphabet agencies force us to live by. So why is our government making a big deal out of climate change when we are already doing more than the rest of the world?

Can you honestly answer this question without blaming the Koch brothers? 

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

What would the Kochs are any other petrochemical industry have done if the government hadn't pressured them to. The argument is jobs versus pollution. Most choose pollution. the kochs didn't become rich being environmentally friendly. They buy elections so that they can do as they please. Ask anyone that worked at texaco and gulf back in the day.

[Hagar]

On April 2, 2016 at 10:24 AM, nappyroots said:

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

What would the Kochs are any other petrochemical industry have done if the government hadn't pressured them to. The argument is jobs versus pollution. Most choose pollution. the kochs didn't become rich being environmentally friendly. They buy elections so that they can do as they please. Ask anyone that worked at texaco and gulf back in the day.

No argument with that nr.   I saw the changes at the chem plant I worked at in the early 70's.   At that time the EPA was a needed Agency of Govt.  The problem with these Agencies, once their initial work is done, they should shrink down in size to monitor what's been accomplished.   But they don't.  They grow larger and come up with ludicrous guidelines to justify their existence and solidify their power.  

An analogy would be to compare it to a man having needed heart surgery.   During that surgery, there would be a min of 2Dr's and number of nurses.  After surgery, a nurse would monitor the patient, and a Dr. would stop by to affirm the patient was okay.  It's a simplified comparison, but you get the idea.  

To be such educated people as most of our politicians are supposed to be, to often they do some really dumb things.