Global Warming Opens Up Antarctic Waterways

[dpddj]

I'm a firm believer that global warming is caused by al gore opening his hypocritical mouth, having a mansion the size of Rhode Island and transporting his pompous a** all around the world in his private jet.
At the same time laughing all the way to the bank.

That, plus that huge orb 149,597,870.7 kilometers (92,955,887.6 miles) away from Earth also has something to do with it.

FYI, the snow Alaska missed out on is sitting in my backyard.

[Rustic Charm]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

Amigo...
You have got to realize what we are dealing with here.
MMGW Cultists are good people, but they just Believe so deeply in the movement that they turn their face away from anyone or any data that could dare question their belief system. In the same way a religious person clams up and doesn't like to discuss things that would challenge their Religious beliefs the same happens with the MMGW Cultists. It's not that they know MMGW is a hoax, they don't. They really do believe it lock stock and barrel and those they don't believe are looked on as some religions do as dirty unenlightened "deniers". You don't think the term "denier" was picked by accident do you? No, it is intentionally used as a religious and cultural taboo. You are anti-gay right, racist, against diversity, and want to club baby fur seals if you are a Denier.

It's honestly never dawned on me that 'anti man made climate changers' (what's a nice word) would be offended at the term 'denier'. What is a word describe someone who is 'not believing' the current science? And I ask that in all seriousness.

And I'm honestly shocked that you really believe us 'MMGW Cultists' (sic), believe non believers use the word 'intentionally as a religious and cultural taboo ... anti-gay, racist, against diversity, and clubbing of baby fur seals' OMG what a link. OMG if you really think this is what 'we' (the cultists) think of you, then all I can say is IM NOT ONE OF THEM.

I might have slipped a few posts but I don't ever remember reading any posts from a 'cultist' that even suggested this. I've asked the question of whether you and Reefmagnet are 'creationists', but that's because to me (an ex creationists) believe you seem to be using similar arguments. I can certainly see that Reefmagnet isn't. But he still uses their strategy of making quite strong bold comments and when he's presented with contradictory evidence he refuses to answer and claims he's being 'baited'. And you, use similar tactics in calling those of us that are believers or at least leaning on that side as 'cultists'. A word you clearly intend to offend with, or why else would you use it.

Same advice I gave Reefmagnet, if you want people to take you seriously, stop using the emotive and offensive name calling, read and answer the responses put to you.

My position is I lean heavily on the current orthodox view, that current climate change extreme changes are a result of human intervention. This is not with any kind of claim to understand a lot of it. I don't. My formal qualifications are in aspects of Theology and some Anthropology. So I rely on very much on others that are qualified. So to me, qualifications and credibility go hand in hand. If someone's qualifications or credibility are really bad, then I don't take a lot of notice of what they put forward. And that's because I don't have the qualifications myself to judge.

From what I have seen, (happy to be show otherwise) there are some, but very few 'qualified and credible' scientists throughout the globe that are still 'unbelievers' (that really does sound like a negative, but if you don't like the term denier )

[Rustic Charm]

Originally Posted by dpddj

I'm a firm believer that global warming is caused by al gore opening his hypocritical mouth, having a mansion the size of Rhode Island and transporting his pompous a** all around the world in his private jet.
At the same time laughing all the way to the bank.

That, plus that huge orb 149,597,870.7 kilometers (92,955,887.6 miles) away from Earth also has something to do with it.

FYI, the snow Alaska missed out on is sitting in my backyard.

That huge 'disk' () thing certainly does affect climate change. it relative 'quietness' is not and can't be what is behind the drastic change to the climate in the past hundred years.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by Udacha

Follow the money to get to the truth!!!

Al Gore receives 350k for every lecture he has and I'm sure he has made millions off of his movie. Why is it that the USA has most of the pollution regulations? I have been to Russia a few times and the air is so bad it's hard to breath and my eyes were always red and it's probably the same in many other countries.

The fact "An Inconvenient Truth" can only be viewed if money changes hands does not reflect well on what was the true objective of that production. Yes it needed to make money to cover expenses. Once the cash had been made, even allowing for a modest profit, the "right thing to do" would have been to relinquish copyright and place it in the public domain. "Denier" flicks like "The Great Global Warming Swindle" have done just that.

From what I understand, co2 is a "result" of global warming not the "cause" and the ocean produces far more co2 than humans and also holds 50 times more co2 than what is in the air. If we get rid of that nasty ocean, where will we sail? And don't forget that all plants need co2 to live and their exhaust is oxygen which we need.

Yes the ocean is what causes the lag in CO2 emmision. The saturation levels of CO2 changes inversely with deep ocean temperature. Another misnomer related to the ocean is the argument that the word's carbon is locked up in fossil fuel deposits. It's not. Much is in the form of carbonate rocks created from marine organisms that extracted the carbon from oceanic carbon dioxide.

When I was in High School in the 70s we were going into an Ice Age because of "freon", what a load of crap that was!! My dad showed me a little experiment in the garage--- he filled a balloon with freon and let it go, it fell to the ground. So how in the hell was freon supposed to make a hole in the Ozone layer ?

Us old codgers are still jaded in our thinking by the memories of the doomers and gloomers on that particular environmental end of the world catastrophe which is now well under control.

Don't give the alarmists something to bite on. Think of that same balloon let go on a windy day. Can't remember the exact term to describe the process, but gases of dissimilar weights will mix together as long as they have some heat energy and don't tend to stratify. For example CO2 is a heavy gas and mixes quite happily with the air (unfortunately!).

And CFC's do actually damage the ozone layer although ozone is a good cop - bad cop. It's a by-product of smog and is toxic, yet in the upper atmosphere it filters out dangerous levels of UV radiation.

The Earth has gone through changes and cycles for billions of years and it will continue to for billions of years. To believe that we humans can control this planet is insane at best.

I would worry more about natural catastrophes like Yellowstone blowing up than how much exhaust my car makes. It's all about the money just like the Ice Age scare a few decades ago.

I'm all for a cleaner environment, but it has gotten way out of hand

That is the logical thinking that seems to escape many.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by dpddj

I'm a firm believer that global warming is caused by al gore opening his hypocritical mouth, having a mansion the size of Rhode Island and transporting his pompous a** all around the world in his private jet.
At the same time laughing all the way to the bank.

That, plus that huge orb 149,597,870.7 kilometers (92,955,887.6 miles) away from Earth also has something to do with it.

FYI, the snow Alaska missed out on is sitting in my backyard.

Gore's Law

As an online climate change debate grows longer, the probability that denier arguments will descend into attacks on Al Gore approaches one.

Here's a hint. Al Gore could be short, evil and fond of child sacrifice. He could emit more CO2 snoring at night than Christopher Monckton does all year. And his movie could be even more inaccurate than the Great Global Warming Swindle. But this wouldn't change a thing. What matters is not Al Gore's character but science. And, in the case of climate change, it's awfully compelling.

As for the sun, it may provide most of the earth's energy, but its role in climate change is insignificant.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by Rustic Charm

Can you post a link to ANYONE, anywhere, that is suggesting the ice caps will be gone in 10 years?

Seriously.

From the article that someone else posted, which Reefmagnet suggested is 8000 years, I work out could possibly be 200 years at the most. But like I said I'm no mathametician. But, to get to 200 years, we are looking at Billions upon Billions of dollars in disaster reaction leading up to that time. Millions upon millions of displaced persons, the extinction of many species of fauna (far more than todays disaserous figures).

I ackowledge that the word 'catastropic' is alarmist. But if we see the trend of climate continuing in the way it currently seems to be, then my grandchildren are going to really see the brunt of this and whilst that might not matter to you and I personally, I think most people have some sense of concern for our future children and grand children.

Technical correction Rustic. The number is eighty thousand years.

[dpddj]

Oh, this is more fun than I thought it could ever be.

Driving down the highway the other day, I was passed by a big black SUV. Bumper sticker said "No war for Oil"

And I love all the Priuses that pass me. I guess spending all that money on a sardine can gives them license to exceed the speed limit while being hunched over a wheel in vehicle that has a carbon footprint larger than you can even imagine, when you factor in all the manufacturing and disposal costs/logistics of getting rid of the exhausted batteries.

[jtsailjt]

Originally Posted by Rustic Charm

My position is I lean heavily on the current orthodox view, that current climate change extreme changes are a result of human intervention. This is not with any kind of claim to understand a lot of it. I don't. My formal qualifications are in aspects of Theology and some Anthropology. So I rely on very much on others that are qualified. So to me, qualifications and credibility go hand in hand. If someone's qualifications or credibility are really bad, then I don't take a lot of notice of what they put forward. And that's because I don't have the qualifications myself to judge.

)

I think there are a LOT of people like you, who want to be mainstream or moderate so they lean heavily on what they are told by the mass media is, and they perceive to be, the "orthodox view" despite the fact that they don't have the beginning of a clue about the actual science they claim to believe in. It's all about who else they are told believes in it and what they perceive their qualifications seem to be. In fact I think that the vast majority of AGW alarmists are right there in that same boat. I first experienced this about a decade ago when two friends of mine, one with no college, and the other with a an undergraduate degree in business from a very mediocre school let me know that they thought I must be completely nuts to not buy the whole global warming thing. I'm not a climate scientist but I do have a degree in engineering and have always been pretty interested in how everything works, whereas my 2 friends hadn't taken a science course since high school and then only because they had to, but somehow felt they were fully qualified to tell me how nuts I was because I didn't buy the "science" they believed strongly in. Of course they had no idea what that "science" involved or anything about any other scientific principle either, but that didn't matter a bit to them. They just "knew." There's a lot of you out there......

[Rustic Charm]

Originally Posted by dpddj

Oh, this is more fun than I thought it could ever be.

Driving down the highway the other day, I was passed by a big black SUV. Bumper sticker said "No war for Oil"

And I love all the Priuses that pass me. I guess spending all that money on a sardine can gives them license to exceed the speed limit while being hunched over a wheel in vehicle that has a carbon footprint larger than you can even imagine, when you factor in all the manufacturing and disposal costs/logistics of getting rid of the exhausted batteries.

How do you know he's not an avid oil supporter? How do you know in fact he or she does not work for an American oil giant that is simply against going to war over oil? Lot's of assumptions there.

Just because he/she is clearly against 'war' does not mean they are a supporter of man made climate action. That is not logical. So his or her carbon footprint is irrelevant.

[Rustic Charm]

Originally Posted by jtsailjt

I think there are a LOT of people like you, who want to be mainstream or moderate so they lean heavily on what they are told by the mass media is, and they perceive to be, the "orthodox view" despite the fact that they don't have the beginning of a clue about the actual science they claim to believe in. It's all about who else they are told believes in it and what they perceive their qualifications seem to be. In fact I think that the vast majority of AGW alarmists are right there in that same boat. I first experienced this about a decade ago when two friends of mine, one with no college, and the other with a an undergraduate degree in business from a very mediocre school let me know that they thought I must be completely nuts to not buy the whole global warming thing. I'm not a climate scientist but I do have a degree in engineering and have always been pretty interested in how everything works, whereas my 2 friends hadn't taken a science course since high school and then only because they had to, but somehow felt they were fully qualified to tell me how nuts I was because I didn't buy the "science" they believed strongly in. Of course they had no idea what that "science" involved or anything about any other scientific principle either, but that didn't matter a bit to them. They just "knew." There's a lot of you out there......

I think your correct, there is a LOT of US, yes.

And your engineering degree is as relevant as my own to understanding this 'science'. You have no more to a claim to superiority over the arguments than I do. YOU have to rely on the 'scientists' to provide the evidence as much as I do.

The difference is, I recognise 'credibility' and 'qualifications' of those scientists. Because I don't believe a person such as you with your engineering degree, or me with mine, are either qualified or credible to 'argue' the science. So yes, we use the science of others.

That's usually how it goes.

[SV THIRD DAY]

Originally Posted by Rustic Charm

I recognise 'credibility' and 'qualifications' of those scientists.

You mean the ones that pay their bills hyping MMGW?

Ha ha ah ....oh ya...they have Credibility all right....

[Rustic Charm]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

You mean the ones that pay their bills hyping MMGW?

Ha ha ah ....oh ya...they have Credibility all right....

You see this is why your not taken seriously. You make jokes alluding to scientists who work for governments or funded by grants being on the take or as someone else pointing out that the film Ice Chasers was made by grants, to suggest this means their science if some how 'not credible'.

Our government (Australia) hates our CSIRO, and hate anything to do with climate change let alone MMCC. Is it really credible to suggest that these men and women, thousands of them, who have fought loud and long against their governments are some how not credible because of who funds them? Would that not be like a dog biting the hand that feeds them?

I think you would be fair enough, if you stated a particular person, a particular scientist, and pointed out their faulty science that is in 'favour' of their funded organisation/government. There science would have to be tightly scrutinised by their peers. Which of course, when it comes to climate science you can barely get anything that is scrutinized as much as Climate data is. I'm all in favour of this.

But from what I can see, the whole climate science concerns have been not just a battle but a massive war to win over governments and the public (like you and I) for some decades now. Climate science is not popular. So, producing data and theories that is unpopular with your financial source is not sensible.

Unless of course your suggesting like some that there is a world wide conspiracy involving scientist governments and a heap of others, seeking some end which the governments are only pretending to fight against but in actual fact want to devote billions of dollars to and as in Australia loose votes and loose office too in order to prop up?

[jtsailjt]

Originally Posted by Rustic Charm

I think your correct, there is a LOT of US, yes.

And your engineering degree is as relevant as my own to understanding this 'science'. You have no more to a claim to superiority over the arguments than I do. YOU have to rely on the 'scientists' to provide the evidence as much as I do.

The difference is, I recognise 'credibility' and 'qualifications' of those scientists. Because I don't believe a person such as you with your engineering degree, or me with mine, are either qualified or credible to 'argue' the science. So yes, we use the science of others.

That's usually how it goes.

I don't claim to have superiority over the arguments, but I find it odd that lots of folks who have NO understanding of any science, the scientific process, and couldn't name a single scientific principle have somehow been persuaded to have such strong opinions about this whole AGW thing as well as knowing just what needs to be done to fix it. What other "science" do so many people with NO scientific background have such strong opinions about? AGW seems to be a pretty unique phenomenon.

As I said, I do realize that those of us with science or engineering degrees in other fields are still not climate scientists, but we have been trained to recognize the scientific process and how data is normally handled and what a marked effect that "adjusting" data can have on results and conclusions, and to be skeptical of any claims until they can be reliably proven. But for some reason, there are lots of folks like you who should know better or at least be very skeptical, but whom instead seem spring loaded to believe that which hasn't yet been proven and want to have the onus be on "deniers" to disprove AGW rather than vice versa. That would just be an amusing commentary on the power of today's mass media and our popular culture, except that after jumping to unproven conclusions, so many AGW alarmists want to spend HUGE public money to "fix" something they don't even fully understand and have no idea what effect that spending all this money might have, if any. And they seem to want to completely disregard those in the 3rd world who need cheap energy the most in order to climb out of dire poverty. So to fix that they say that those of us in the US should subsidize third world energy prices once our energy policy drives up worldwide energy prices. Millions of Americans jobs have moved overseas to the third world where labor rates are a fraction of ours, and now that same out of work American is supposed to pay an additional carbon tax when he buys gas for his car, so that the guy who "stole" his job in the third world can use cheaper electricity that's being subsidized by this carbon tax. Really?!
Wouldn't it be better to just let climate scientists continue to study this until they can reach a true consensus and use their science to make accurate predictions and can explain WHY their prediction come true just as is done in every other specialty of science? THEN, when we understand just which lever does what, maybe we can pull the correct lever just the right amount to set about "fixing" whatever needs it, if anything. That's the way science usually operates. This current ready, fire, aim approach, with the rationale of "what harm will it do if we're wrong" is NOT science and is a very bad idea for everyone but those who stand to make a bundle off of it.

[SV THIRD DAY]

Originally Posted by Rustic Charm

You see this is why your not taken seriously. You make jokes alluding to scientists who work for governments or funded by grants being on the take or as someone else pointing out that the film Ice Chasers was made by grants, to suggest this means their science if some how 'not credible'.

Oh now I get it....you are under some false assumption that I'm even attempting to have any credibility in the MMGW Cultists eyes. Na...who cares about what religuios fanatics think. Until they can convince the American Voters of their crazy cult, I just ignore them and their religion of Gia.

[Rustic Charm]

Originally Posted by jtsailjt

I don't claim to have superiority over the arguments, but I find it odd that lots of folks who have NO understanding of any science, the scientific process, and couldn't name a single scientific principle have somehow been persuaded to have such strong opinions about this whole AGW thing as well as knowing just what needs to be done to fix it. Well, yes. I agree. That's what a lot of us wonder about.

What other "science" do so many people with NO scientific background have such strong opinions about? AGW seems to be a pretty unique phenomenon.

Sorry, was that a question to me? or rhetorical? I don't understand.

As I said, I do realize that those of us with science or engineering degrees in other fields are still not climate scientists, but we have been trained to recognize the scientific process and how data is normally handled and what a marked effect that "adjusting" data can have on results and conclusions, and to be skeptical of any claims until they can be reliably proven. Yes, and you are not the only one. Lots of people have. But for some reason, there are lots of folks like you who should know better or at least be very skeptical, but whom instead seem spring loaded to believe that which hasn't yet been proven and want to have the onus be on "deniers" to disprove AGW rather than vice versa. Well, I think that's pretty unfair of you really. I've added very little to this whole thread. When I have responded with some facts and data, the 'detail' of what I replied with was met not with any expanation or response, but with making jokes and with one response, 'well we will just have to agree to disagree'. The reason why the 'believers' expect the 'non believers' to address the evidence is because that's how debate works. The 'believers' have put up the science (I'm referring to the climatology) and if there is argument against, then it's expected that 'evidence' against what they have put up is put forward. That would just be an amusing commentary on the power of today's mass media and our popular culture, except that after jumping to unproven conclusions, so many AGW alarmists want to spend HUGE public money to "fix" something they don't even fully understand and have no idea what effect that spending all this money might have, if any. Well, I'm certainly sceptical about whether the 'fix' is possible. I have a tendency to think it's too late. And they seem to want to completely disregard those in the 3rd world who need cheap energy the most in order to climb out of dire poverty. So to fix that they say that those of us in the US should subsidize third world energy prices once our energy policy drives up worldwide energy prices. Millions of Americans jobs have moved overseas to the third world where labor rates are a fraction of ours, and now that same out of work American is supposed to pay an additional carbon tax when he buys gas for his car, so that the guy who "stole" his job in the third world can use cheaper electricity that's being subsidized by this carbon tax. Really?!

Okay, I might leave your third world and job stealing comments alone.

Wouldn't it be better to just let climate scientists continue to study this until they can reach a true consensus and use their science to make accurate predictions and can explain WHY their prediction come true just as is done in every other specialty of science? Absolutely, yes. But the general consensus in the scientific world is that it has a consensus. Yes, I know you don't believe this. But from what I can see, the academic world is in agreement. THEN, when we understand just which lever does what, maybe we can pull the correct lever just the right amount to set about "fixing" whatever needs it, if anything. That's the way science usually operates. This current ready, fire, aim approach, with the rationale of "what harm will it do if we're wrong" is NOT science and is a very bad idea for everyone but those who stand to make a bundle off of it.

I think the idea is that we are wanting to see action 'now' before it gets irreversible, which many scientists feel it might already be. No one claims to know 100% the future, but the current picture is not good. And what was shown in the film ICE CHASERS was evidence of that. It's not 80 000 years that we have, not even in my maths which I admit has never been very good.

Most people I think, you included I'm sure, want to ensure a future for our children and our grandchildren and I want them to be able to sail to some of the places I could. The end of the world is not being broadcast, but it's certainly headed to great future difficulties. Difficulties which my children and their children will be struggling through. Whilst I'm sceptical about whether that's fixable. Morally I believe we need to do everything possible now to slow, prevent or fix it.