PDA

View Full Version : Ice caps growing


tzipi
04-05-2010, 09:15 PM
http://www.washingtontimes.com/weblogs/watercooler/2010/jan/10/inconvenient-truth-ice-cap-growing/

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1242011/DAVID-ROSE-The-mini-ice-age-starts-here.html

boxcar
04-05-2010, 09:21 PM
That's all caused by Bush and his man-made global warming machine.

Boxcar

toetoe
04-05-2010, 10:46 PM
http://www.washingtontimes.com/weblogs/watercooler/2010/jan/10/inconvenient-truth-ice-cap-growing/

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1242011/DAVID-ROSE-The-mini-ice-age-starts-here.html



Didn't you hear ? The debate is ...



over !!!

tzipi
04-05-2010, 11:14 PM
Didn't you hear ? The debate is ...



over !!!

Nope, didn't hear. Just found those articles interesting.

fast4522
04-06-2010, 02:20 PM
The Earth crust and plates will continue to do what has been going on over and over, the democrats will try to tax you for over and over. Several times this earth has had devastating and climatic events that wiped out a majority of species, only to have new life form again. If our days are numbered it will be because of some stupid republican or democrat, but maybe a really neat way of balancing the budget or wiping out the money we owe.

46zilzal
04-06-2010, 02:58 PM
National Geographic is just a million tads more reputable and no where are they finding the same long range occurrence.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/11/1108_041108_north_pole.html

bigmack
04-06-2010, 03:04 PM
National Geographic is just a million tads more reputable and no where are they finding the same long range occurrence.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/11/1108_041108_north_pole.html
http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u70/macktime/4_6_10_12_02_26.png :lol:

Your bits are becoming entertaining as Henny Youngman.

rastajenk
04-06-2010, 03:13 PM
Polar Bear is back on the menu! :jump:

ArlJim78
04-06-2010, 03:13 PM
The Earth crust and plates will continue to do what has been going on over and over, the democrats will try to tax you for over and over.
bingo, thats all this ever was, an elaborate justification for massive new taxes.

46zilzal
04-06-2010, 03:19 PM
typical as one can read all about it yet the scientific community keeps finding the same data.
http://www.waronscience.com/excerpt.php

Pace Cap'n
04-06-2010, 05:14 PM
Perhaps the glaciers were too thick to start with.

fast4522
04-06-2010, 05:26 PM
I doubt that, just Zillys thick head.

46zilzal
04-07-2010, 10:51 AM
The US Geological Survey, and organization out in the field actually testing markers has many scientific papers to support their position.
Take your pick.

http://www.usgs.gov/global_change/fact_sheets.asp

Tom
04-07-2010, 11:22 AM
46, what is the correct thickness of the ice caps?
If you and science claim they are getting too thin, what is your standard for thickness, and why is that optimal? Surely science cannot make claims of extremes without standards of norm.

boxcar
04-07-2010, 11:33 AM
46, what is the correct thickness of the ice caps?
If you and science claim they are getting too thin, what is your standard for thickness, and why is that optimal? Surely science cannot make claims of extremes without standards of norm.

:lol: :lol: We've been down this road before when we tried to learn what scientists believe the ideal global temperature is, since the earth is supposedly too warm. (Too warm compared to what for those of you whose heads are stuck in the sand.) I suspect we'll get the same response this time around. :rolleyes:

Boxcar

Tom
04-07-2010, 11:59 AM
Funny how 46 and science fall flat on their faces whenever a specific question is asked. I thought, though, that a question as simple as this one would get a reply.

boxcar
04-07-2010, 12:54 PM
Funny how 46 and science fall flat on their faces whenever a specific question is asked. I thought, though, that a question as simple as this one would get a reply.

Not when a question goes to the very heart of their stupid presuppositions. They construct these complex, elaborate theories designed to show how super smart they are, but they're exposed for the frauds they are with one simple, straightforward question. Their house of cards falls easily.

Boxcar

46zilzal
04-07-2010, 12:58 PM
Not when a question goes to the very heart of their stupid presuppositions. They construct these complex, elaborate theories designed to show how super smart they are, but they're exposed for the frauds they are with one simple, straightforward question. Their house of cards falls easily.

Boxcar
Science has a built in control called independent verification. ANYONE can concoct a theory about anything, but it is never given much credence until independent verification by separate investigators usually in a slightly different experiment.

Those who deny scientific data are simply lying to themselves.

A phenomenon happening worldwide and reported as such has nothing to do with personal point of view.

YET, many believe a work like the Bible can be taken at face value.

It is a fairy tale to influence morals.

bigmack
04-07-2010, 01:12 PM
A phenomenon happening worldwide and reported as such has nothing to do with personal point of view
Hey Capt. Out of Touch, while you've been reading NGeographic articles from '04 things have happened.

Oh, and Marilyn Monroe is no longer with us.

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u70/macktime/4_7_10_10_06_49.png

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u70/macktime/4_7_10_10_07_30.png

vmCZLUEjwM0

46zilzal
04-07-2010, 01:30 PM
From NASA itself not filtered through the faux news machine.

Quote from their website. http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

All three major global surface temperature reconstructions show that Earth has warmed since 1880. 5 Most of this warming has occurred since the 1970s, with the 20 warmest years having occurred since 1981 and with all 10 of the warmest years occurring in the past 12 years. Even though the 2000s witnessed a solar output decline resulting in an unusually deep solar minimum in 2007-2009, surface temperatures continue to increase.

delayjf
04-07-2010, 01:46 PM
Was this chart put together before or after NASA was embarrassing forced to modify their avg temp readings due to "mis-calculations".

Science has a built in control called independent verification
How is anybody going to be able to verify IPCC claims if they will not turn over the data for independent analysis which we have now been told has since been 'lost"?

ArlJim78
04-07-2010, 01:52 PM
the first step is to make sure the data is good, that has been a tough hurdle to overcome so far as we have seen.

the next step is to investigate and determine what caused the observed changes. mankind or natural processes. this is so far not been done, and it may not be possible to prove.

then we need to know if the observed changes are indeed harmful. that hasn't been done.

the final step, in the case that the changes are indeed found to be man caused and they are determined to be harmful, is to determine what should be done. there is little chance that carbon taxes or CO2 regulation will have any real effect. I would say that the best course of action will be for man to simply adapt to whatever happens, whether it be natural or mancaused. we are good at adapting to what the environment throws at us. We're not good at understanding how to shape the earth's climate to suit our whims.

what should we do if we find that through no fault of our own, that the earth is rapidly entering into an ice age? should we search for the perfect balance of taxation that will cause humans to act in ways that climate scientists have determined will perfectly counteract nature and leave the enviroment unchanged so that we can enjoy things the way they are now? not bloody likely. we are along for the ride, get used to it.

we shouldn't pretend that we are the shapers of the environment and climate on earth, and focus more on how we might deal with changes as they occur, because whatever we do we cannot prevent climate change. we can and should work to limit our input into the equation, but as we do that we need to not listen to the charlatans pushing their political agenda in the name of science.

rastajenk
04-07-2010, 01:57 PM
And it's not just political agendas. Some of these so-called experts have positioned themselves to benefit financially if certain "green" applications get pushed ahead of others. Follow the money, an adage as true as it ever was.

Tom
04-07-2010, 01:59 PM
Poor zilly.
I wonder how many bridges he owns?

bigmack
04-07-2010, 02:07 PM
Poor zilly.
I wonder how many bridges he owns?
Full blinkers on that tunneled fool. The irony of his accusing others of not having an open mind is about as pathetic as it gets.

boxcar
04-07-2010, 11:28 PM
Full blinkers on that tunneled fool. The irony of his accusing others of not having an open mind is about as pathetic as it gets.

Plus he's supposed to be really huge on the Change thing too? Change is always so good. If it's so stinkin' good how come he never changes his ideas, opinions or ideology?

Boxcar

Robert Goren
04-07-2010, 11:46 PM
Bobby Goren's first law arguing.

Never argue Science with anyone who doesn't believe in Science.

Tom
04-08-2010, 07:26 AM
You mean zilly?
Yes, for someone who always mentions the scientific method, he rarely uses it himself.

Black Ruby
04-08-2010, 08:40 AM
Of what use are facts presented to fools, as they will continue to believe the uneducated Limbaugh and Beck...

Tom
04-08-2010, 11:09 AM
Actually, Rush and Beck point out other sources of information that we investigate and form opinions from.
Perhaps, though, seeing how how much more enlightened you are on the subject, you can answer my simple questions that have so far stumped 46.

The ice caps are thinner compared to what standard? How do we know that standard is correct, seeing how they are now and have always been dynamic rather than static?

And, seeing how you are so far advanced, what exactly is the ideal planet temperature and can you show me the Gage R&R that was used on the measurement process? And the actual data used in the calculations and adjustments that have become so controversial?

Being uneducated, to me, is not have a specified standard as a basis and not having a verifiable and repeatable, proven measurement system in
place. I do that crap every day. and I posted some stuff on just how bad the measurement system really is and how the majority of the data collection points violate the scientific protocals.

ArlJim78
04-08-2010, 01:15 PM
Bobby Goren's first law arguing.

Never argue Science with anyone who doesn't believe in Science.
On the other hand, just because someone believes in science doesn't mean that they are capable of critical thinking, or that they have no biases, or have the aptitude to to solve problems.

delayjf
04-09-2010, 10:25 AM
Of what use are facts presented to fools

WHAT FACTS??? The IPCC did not turn over their data for independant review and now they claim THEY LOST THE DATA.