The Antarctic is Half Full
by Doug TenNapel
Global Warming is not melting the continental ice cap. Come to find out there’s some shrinkage on the west side, but it’s more than made up by the glacial growth on the east side.
But the business of Big Green is already at hand. As the prophet Al Gore said, “The debate is over.” We’ve already pegged the death of the polar bear on the automobile. Public schools are showing children photos of these cute, cuddly, white bears clinging to shrunken ice floes.
Now we get to choose which side of Antarctica to believe in. Are you an optimist or a pessimist? Half full or half empty? Eeyore or Tigger?
In my view we have every reason to have hope so long as Big Green doesn’t fool everyone into thinking the answer to save planet earth is to go back to trading sea shells and create paper thin cars that guarantee human death in common traffic accidents. Or worse, that we will have to ride in public transportation that counters America’s rugged individualism that has served us so well. I keep a urine-scented air freshener in my car so when I take the bus I feel right at home.
If you still believe the ‘inconvenient truth’ that Antarctica is melting and we’re all going to be flooded by 2020 then maybe you’re just a glass is half empty kind of guy. There’s a whole other half Antarctica you can choose to look at. Why so glum?
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
132 Comments
"Why so glum?"
Because the Left do not know how to be happy. If they're not pissed about something then they have no purpose.
Come to find out there’s some shrinkage on the west side, but it’s more than made up by the glacial growth on the east side.
Mr. TenNapel
I am as tired of his eminence AlGore and Mikey Moore as anyone else, so where can I find the documentation that backs you up?
Isn't interesting that the Anarctic ice melts in the summertime??? Oh, dear? Being the great psychic that I am, I spy in my minds eye that we will be hearing that the Arctic ice is melting come August. Anyone want to place a bet?
It's not paper-thin cars or public transportation they want. It's a total cessation of industry.
"Stop doing things! Stop making things!"
They envision a pastoral, subsistence-farming world; and "global warming" was invented to help them get their way. It's the Spotted Owl or the Snail Darter writ large — a convenient excuse to stop economic activity.
MikeO
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,25348657-401...
Crazytalk!
Besides I thought "Global Warming" was out now, isn't it "Climate Change"? They keep coming up with new phrases for it, and it vexes me. So I keep it simple, I call it…"The Weather."
I can't bring myself to get too worked up about Global Warming, Climate Change, whatever they're calling it this week, mainly because 30 years ago "consensus" was saying we were heading into another ice age, fast forward to the '90s and all of a sudden "consensus" said we were going to have droughts and desertification on a global scale. Personally I don't believe the weather man when he tells me what it's going to be like 7 days from now, let alone 7 months, years or decades.
Clearly, our carbon emissions have created the seasons. We truly are an evil species.
Thank you!
Now that is an inconvenient Truth.
Every time Al Gore opens his mouth it's a massive carbon emission, and I'm not just talking CO2.
Isn't that Climate-Changeman?
The most infuriating part of this Chicken Little scam is the psychological trauma being inflicted upon our children in the classroom, and on 'kids' programming like Nickelodion. The environmental apocalypse being presented to our childred in the guise of "education" makes Michelangelo's "Last Judgement" seem kind of cheery by comparison.
When did Gaia worship become our recognized state religion?
Do robots emit carbon?
You're right on about those cars. I saw one of those Smart Cars or whatever they are on the interstate a couple of weekends ago. I thought to myself, "Better not find yourself in any sort of wreck, not even with a deer." And being six foot six, I don't even know if I could fit in one, not comfortably at least anyway. Kiss your back seat and trunk goodbye.
And I don't mind taking public transportation from time to time, mostly because I freely choose to do so and am not forced. My wife and I usually take it to avoid rental car fees or paying the absurd parking rates in cities like Chicago. But your comment about the urine smell made me literally LOL! Truer words have not been spoken in most cases. Probably the worst case I've personally experienced was on the light rail system in San Jose.
Hey you're right, how insensitive of me.
Then again shouldn't it actually be Climate-Changepeople?
Which brings me to a question. When will there be a flatulance tax? Who will monitor the methane output of people? And will this be the end of Mexican food???
Boy, this site sure is full of Holocaust deniers! You are speaking heresy, people! Repent your sins at the altar of "climate change" before it's too late!
Probably, and as for who will monitor it, I'm sure that's a "shovel ready" job already funded, buried around page 867 of the Porkulus package.
Not sure, he's always emitting methane out of his pie-hole, that's for sure.
Mmm, pie. Hey speaking of pie, where are the usual Trolls, they still having their naps or something?
A flatulence tax? Good God, that would bankrupt my brothers. That's their favorite hobby.
Tsk…tsk…repent of your carbon sins and pay your indulgences in the form of a "carbon offset" ye mockers. It's not too late. High Priest Al Gore may still give you absolution for a small fee.
I stopped worrying about the ice shelf melting when I realized it's scheduled for AFTER the Mayan end of time. We're basically safe.
I'll take that bet since Antartica is in the Southern Hemisphere, so I don't think they'll be much melting in August. In February, when it's summer down there, that's a different story!
It's practically a lifestyle in many places. Like the Senate…..
No offense dude, but Bev clearly stated that the bet was if Arctic ice would be melting in August, not if Antarctic ice would be melting in August. Just thougth I would point that out.
You can have my bean dip when you pry it from my cold dead hand.
Robots emitting carbon just depends on what sort of fuel they use. If they depend on fossil fuels, yes. If they rely on nuclear power, they are evil, and thus, due to their evil nature, emit mass amounts of carbon. Al Gore type robot, however, runs off of the hopes and dreams of Obamamaniacs, rainbows, and unicorn excretions.
People is still too ugly of a term. Try Climate-changepersons. Makes about as much sense as any other liberal name change…
now THAT'S funny….I don't care who you are…..
How about "Climate Changists"? Or even better, "Morons"…….
I was perusing the book section at Target recently, and noticed a book called 'Mission: Planet Earth – Our World and Its Climate and how Humans are Changing Them' by Sally Ride (first American female astronaut). I flipped through a couple pages, and wondered why they had to write the whole book when everything was right there in the title. Just seemed a little redundant and a waste of 80 pages.
Apparently there's a companion book called 'Mission: Save the Planet – Things You can do to Fight Global Warming!' So apparently there it's still referenced as Global Warming and not Climate Change. Fighting "global warming" seems to be about the only fight liberals are willing to engage in. As long as it's the 'little people' sacrificing. So again, still not even a fight they're really engaged in.
Hey, that's MISTER Moron to you, buddy. Show some respect.
That was my point Scott…you see right now it's April in Antarctica which is late summer in the Southern hemisp….oh, forget it. Ice melts when it's hot….get it?
Try Google. Type in "global warming". See "global warming myth and g.w. hoax…..
We could make it a job tied to Welfare programs. If you take Welfare you are methane patrol officer until such a time as you are off Welfare. That ought to make the Welfare rolls drop!
You never know, some of them may like Methane Patrol duty…shudder.
These "global warming" fascists won't be happy until American Moms are picking up the kids from school in a stretch Vespa with tassled saddlebags.
Wait, ice melts when it's hot? Do you have a consensus of scientists to back you up on that one?
Can I get a ride on his ridiculously inefficent houseboat? How 'bout his private jet? Can I sit in his massive Suburban that always idles with the engine running and the a/c on? Knock back a few cold ones at Chateau Gore luxuriating in the ice cold a/c?
The science is in.
Congratulations, "public transportation counters rugged individualism" is now the stupidest thing I've read on this blog
I keep hoping they're right. I've always liked living up here on Nob Hill, but I like warmth and the beach, too. That used to mean I'd have to move back to Southern California. If they're right, I can just stay here and wait.
no the vespa runs on carbon based lifeform bio fuels. If only we had a Mr. Fusion.
Thank you! Still nobody give a $hit!
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,517035,00.htm...
This is a good site: http://icecap.us/index.php
Also: http://wattsupwiththat.com/
I only have anecdotal evidence, but I am pretty sure the science is pretty accurate on this subject.
All these "the ice is melting! the ice is melting!" stories come out in the moneths leading up to summer. Gee, I wonder why?
That is sooooo sexist!!!
Shame on you!!!!
Let's turn it back on them. "Vex you, Algore!"
Speak for yourself, evil one. In San Francisco we have one season–cold.
You mean a large fee….
Ahh … Earth Day.
Its like Kwanzaa for white people.
Absolutely priceless! A MasterCard moment…LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!111
And while you're at it, can heat really melt steel???
I think we have a new bumpersticker!!!
The link below goes to the constantly updated global sea ice area graph. The graph shows both the total sea ice area and the difference between the area and the average for today. At the moment the earth has about 600,000 sq killometers more ice than Al Gore and his cronies would say is 'average.' The polar bears are safe for a few more minutes at least.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/gl...
Oh my God! That is priceless, sir! I've got to remember that.
I don't drive…I take the loser cruiser (a.k.a. public transportation) but even I would get that bumper sticker. Mind you, bean dip and me, a deadly combination. A good way to take out some of those global warming nuts…kaboom!
Mike,
Here is a great site that debunks a lot of the environmental BS in technical terms. It also leads you to other equally good articles and research. I highly recommend it:
http://www.climate-skeptic.com/
It's earth day, they are busy praying to the trees.
I've been called worse, usually by professors back in my college days.
Unicorn excretions. . . yuck. Though the meat is mighty tasty!
You won't see that on Hufpo! LOL!! +1 for you Captain!
Put the bumpersticker on the bus — your taxes bought the bus, as I see it, you own it.
That's because you don't emit enough. Eat more beans, fewer kittens.
Not according to some people. . . like Charlie Sheen.
Yeah, and the beach will come to you. . .
Good news the Sierra Club, have been conducting, Bovine Butt Plug Experiments. You know the cow mutilations, they are actually experiments gone terribly bad. Well meaning environmentalist roam through cattle country in black vans chasing cows around inserting the Bovine Butt Plug. Until quite recently the cows have been blowing up when the gases are being converted, subsequently the mutilated cow phenomenon. The good news is they’ve figured it out and it’s ready for humans, getting excited. How does it work? You simply insert your Butt Plug and when one expels gas it turns a small wheel making a spark converting the methane in to harmless earth friendly Oxygen. Now man can think of himself as a harmless plant simply converting like photosynthesis, bad methane into beautiful harmless oxygen. Available for most Carbon Based Life forms, Mom, Dad, Kids, cats, dogs, parakeets. Be part of the solution, and for only $19.99, and for a short time if you purchase for a family of four now only, $49.99 plus SH. Think Green!
I think they are busy over at Huffpo praising the great and wonderful Sean Penn. They don't have pie, but they sure have some lovin' for Hugo Chavez, I tell ya'! Oh, and they really, really, really don't like conservatives. I was shocked, SHOCKED, I tell you!
I love Earth Day because it's one of those rare occasions when I get the fun of marveling at human stupidity from the right and left at the same time. Usually it's one or the other. But on Earth Day? Nope, EVERYONE'S flying their dumbass flag proud – and I get 24 full hours of feeling like the one-eyed-man in the kingdom of the blind.
"Liberals" having cold hard facts and science fully on their side, for a change, STILL feel compelled to make hippie-tastic tools of themselves anyway; while "conservatives" ignore all opportunity to do the wise thing (say… think up and propose environmental solutions that are as good or better than their opponents that work from a small-gov, individual-rights angle) and instead use up massive amounts of energy either pretending that nothing is wrong or that somehow toxicity in the air and water is a neutral or even beneficial thing.
Such a show… even if I still bet it's MUCH better watched from the skybox than courtside…
We're praying for you Hawk! Go Global Warming.
Yeah, Manbearpig will come and eat you, evil deniers!
Cost is realative man.
Andrew
AlGore got there first.
Error 404 – Not Found
I love graphs.
Help me understand one thing. Most of the GW discussion is regarding Antarctica, and Polar Bears keep getting thrown in. Yet everything that I read tells me that Polar Bears live in the Arctic. Did I get this upside down?
Thank You!
I can hear AlGore now – That is just another Fox News Inconvenient Truth.
This is a good site: http://icecap.us/index.php
Their equation was I=PAT, which means that environmental impact is equal to population multiplied by affluence multiplied by technology. Protecting the planet seemed to require fewer people, less wealth and simpler technology – the same sort of social transformation and energy revolution that will be advocated at many Earth Day rallies on Wednesday
This reminds me of a movie from the 60s or 70s. The premise was that all humans had to die at age 30. For the life of me I can not remember the name of the movie. However, I see the Progressive Set headed that way. May I volunteer them first.
MovieBob "… think up and propose environmental solutions"
Well, I am not all that smart or educated. But you might look into Professor Bjorn Lomborg, who (last I heard) believes in AGW but has far more practical (as in, affordable and do-able now rather than do-something-now-that-tech-may-let-you-do-in-twenty-years) things to do. Not "solutions" perhaps, but still…
Is Earth generally warmer than, say, 1776? Seems so. Is all warming since, oh, 1850 due to human industry? Highly doubtful. somehow suspect other things might have a larger effect – like the Sun, which warms us from about one to two degrees above absolute zero to more than five hundred degrees: the IPCC not only ignores it, it is supposed to ignore it, since it was formed to look at human influence on climate – not others. Alas, over time this morphed into "NOBODY should look at any non-human influence."
I am old enough to recall, if vaguely, that in the Fifties/Sixties Global Cooling was blamed on humans – and he proposed solutions? Stop using fossil fuels, replace wasteful cars with "public" transport…
http://wattsupwiththat.com/?s=antarctica
Lots of good stuff here
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/04/17/revealed-an...
The evidence is that there's nothing to worry about.
BTW: Antarctica has 90% of the Earth's Ice and 80% of the fresh water. And it's only getting colder if anything.
Thank you!
That will make for some good reading tonight.
That is what I enjoy about this site. The things that I have learned.
Great Stuff.
Let's try this again. The site is up, but something is wrong with the link itself…
http://www.climate-skeptic.com/
Let's try this again. The site is up, but something is wrong with the link itself…
http://www.climate-skeptic.com/
This one works.
"If you still believe the ‘inconvenient truth’ that Antarctica is melting and we’re all going to be flooded by 2020 then maybe you’re just a glass is half empty kind of guy."
Are you sure that's not supposed to read "brain half empty kind of guy"?
IntenseDebate Notification <DIV>Originally the headlines all focused on the Antarctic ice (where the penguins live) because melting of the Antarctic ice, which rests on top of dry land, would raise sea levels.</DIV> <DIV></DIV> <DIV>Lately most global warming head lines cite the Arctic (where the polar bears live)as proof of global warming. They do this because the 2007 ice levels in the Arctic were quite low. The reason they were low is controversial but is most likely the result of unusual winds and currents that happened to flush the ice out of the Arctic through narrow channels andinto warmer waters. There is a time lapse video somewhere that allows you to watch this unusual occurrence.</DIV> <DIV></DIV> <DIV>The Arctic ice has largely recovered from this low and is currently a few percent below the line that Al Gore would consider normal (and above all years since 2000).</DIV> <DIV></DIV> <DIV>In the mean time the Antarctic ice has consistently grown over the last 10 years and is currently at an unprecedented levels (which is why you don't see it in the news). Thus, the poor penguins have to march farther than they used to and may be endangered as a result. </DIV> <DIV></DIV> <DIV>All the global warming computer models say that the poles should warm first and most. This is why there is so much focus on ice among climate buffs.The poles are not warming. The earth is not warming. The models are being shown to be wrong over all and way way wrong at the poles.</DIV> <DIV></DIV> <DIV>Since we are not warming, the term is now'climate change.'</DIV> <DIV style=”FONT: 10pt arial”>
IntenseDebate Notification <DIV>Here are some more cool graphs:</DIV> <DIV></DIV> <DIV>http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/04/22/ice-target-... <DIV></DIV> <DIV style=”FONT: 10pt arial”>
Cap and trade to the rescue!
What an utter disappointment. I scrolled through all the comments looking for the Hippie Trolls that surely would flock to this post to defend the dying Earth Mother. Alas, there are none.
Now what am I going to do with all of these facts?
Mike, the movie was called Logan's Run. I think it came out in 1976.
Facts? Facts? We don't need no stinking facts!
That's a fact!
Thank you!
More Great stuff
Chunks?
Doug TenNapel: "Or worse, that we will have to ride in public transportation that counters America’s rugged individualism that has served us so well."
Yes, right, now that's an argument. Public transportation, like Santa Monica's Big Blue Bus, really is an un-American and downright communist idea and is just another great way for terrorists to blow up innocent Americans. Stop buses, trains, planes and other commie transport right now! Hummers for the masses!
You do realize that there are large sections of the country that are rural and don't have any public transportation to speak of. Around here it's not unusual for a lot of people to drive 20 or 30 miles one way to their jobs. No buses make those trips and there are no non-freight trains within 120 miles of here. So aside from rugged individualism, a lot of people need to drive to work, not everyone lives in the urban sprawl.
You have to remember Golani that the One isn’t interested in you. You’re evil, don’t you know!
True I am pretty evil. But hey everyone needs a hobby right?
That’s funny! Earthworm wants you to catch a bus whether you like it or not, right.
Really guys we need to think independently here…….
Since we know that eventually Global Warming will cause another Ice Age should we not see a movement of the Antartic Plates from time to time. They get confused (like Al Gore) and don't know what to do. So one will shrink while the other grows as a compromise.
It's all perfectly reasonable. like the guy I was dropping large quantities of psychadelics with yesterday said. Compromise is the key to negotitiation. So the plan is that Obama will go to the South Pole Station and apologize to an ice core for the wrongs against the envionment caused by the Bush administation. This should fix it – - Right! Oh, Wait …………………………………
I can hardley wait to see Mr. Obama and Hillary decked out in parkas and shaking hands with a group of Leopard Seals while they appologize for the warm temps.
Oh wait, the parkas would spoil the photo op. Maybe he can wear the same suit that he wore on the cover of the Washingtonian. Brrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.
Absolution from the Cardinal o Climate is BoguS.
He testified this mornong on the subject in Congress. However, Congress did not want to hear the other side.
http://www.climatedepot.com/a/429/Report-Democrat...
Here in flyover-land (Kansas City specifically) there is almost no public transportation at all. Hell, my nearest friend here lives 22 miles away. But then again, we rarely get shot, kidnapped, or raped, so I guess it's just the price we pay.
Would you care to post some actual valid studies to back this up?
I asked that question 15 weeks ago when this blog was fresh. Please see the responses that I received. If you have someting to the contrary from entities that are not profiting from this issue, I would be interested in reading them.
Here's a pretty good explanation for what's going on.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16988-why-a...
The thing is that people seem to be forgetting it's not just "Global Warming" it's "Global Climate Change". The overall warming has knock on effects, creating areas of higher and lower pressures, greenhouse gasses also play a huge part. Just because it's complicated, doesn't mean it's not true, science isn't meant to be easy.
Either way, we know Global Warming is happening man made or no, so saying the antarctic not melting is evidence for it not being MAN MADE makes no sense.
Why is there no discussion of the effect of temparature in Antartica on the COw experiments of the ice cores?
Please see my post below:
I think you're being a cock. I don't think anyone on the horrible left is saying not to have a car, just that if you can take public transport, it's a good idea. Earthworm was quite rightfully poking fun at the idea that public transport kills individualism. You're the ones making this into a ridiculous partisan issue.
For a start you're using a mercilessly biased site. Of course, a lot of sites on this are going to be biased, but that in particular is quite literally dotted with political quotes and idioms.
Second, I am not claiming to be an expert myself, and I sure as hell know most people here aren't either.
For the first part of the question, here's an article on that.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/200...
"The reason has to do with the fact that the warmings take about 5000 years to be complete. The lag is only 800 years. All that the lag shows is that CO2 did not cause the first 800 years of warming, out of the 5000 year trend. The other 4200 years of warming could in fact have been caused by CO2, as far as we can tell from this ice core data. "
"In other words, CO2 does not initiate the warmings, but acts as an amplifier once they are underway. From model estimates, CO2 (along with other greenhouse gases CH4 and N2O) causes about half of the full glacial-to-interglacial warming."
It's not really proof either way.
"The only experiment on man made CO2 that is given any credit". By WHO exactly? Who is giving the credit? This is why people stop taking you seriously. You seem to switch between persecuted minority and common sense majority when it suits your argument.
The second part, I'm not sure where you're getting that from exactly. I know around 5% becomes very uncomfortable for humans, but I doubt "all life on earth" would perish at that. I don't believe there "is" an optimum level, optimum level for what exactly? I'm not quite sure what you're getting at.
Again, the "why is that" implies some kind of conspiracy theory amongst the majority of climate scientists you're providing no evidence for. Even before getting into statistics your approach is completely wrong. I'm not someone who has a vested interest in "sticking it" to anyone but it seems to me that this is the main motivating factor here.
If you've yet to see an expert answer those questions, then you probably haven't looked hard enough. I don't normally talk about global warming, so I haven't found out for myself yet either.
I've no doubt these "facts" are less than intellectually honest and you purposely sought out results that already agreed with you.
The basic fact is that CO2 reflects heat the more we pump of it into the atmosphere. Even if we were to be going through a normal period of fluctuation causing cooling, it's still hotter than it SHOULD be. You can't have all that up there with no effect.
I also find the anti-pagan/earth worshipper attitude really offensive. Again you'd tear into someone for holding that attitude for Christians, when only the most aggressive "seculars" would be quite that rude about christianity.
No 1) If a someone is biased then they are never allowed to ask a question of what they disagree! Sorry one is allowed to question (especially when the opposition wants to spend 800 billion in tax payer money) even if one disagrees. That is illogical.
No 2) CO2 is poisonous in atmosphere leves greater than 5% not just to animals but to plants as well. It is why you have to have a CO2 scrubber in spaceships.
No3) I expect to find answers to obvious questions that should be asked from a scientific debate. I have read Discover, Scientific American, have read many articles etc. many of them biased for global warming and mot don;t even bother to explain why?
Who says it is the Antartic Ice cores. Well the Sicence Channel, the Global Warming documentary by some liberal group that was in the theatters two years back, wikipedia, several sicence sites, the Combridge Press US Report on Global Climate Change sent to Congress, ariticles in science magazines. All go back to the Antartic Ice Cores after explaining the many faults of every other evidence, period. No one disagrees with this that it is considered the preemium evidence. I don't dispute it either. I ask merely how dry ice forming in Antarctica affects the study which says CO2 levels have spiked like a hockey stick in 50 years. No conspircacy, I don't know but I suspect they should exagerate them. Hence the reason for the question? Why do you treat everyione else as if they are stupid when you admit you don't know anymore than they do?
Logans Run
You may be on to them.
I cast my vote for Morons.
Again you'd tear into someone for holding that attitude for Christians, when only the most aggressive "seculars" would be quite that rude about christianity.
And the earth is flat!
Whether there is one or not.
http://shermansmarch.blogspot.com/2009/08/cap-and...
L.R. Weizel
Why don't you show some valid studies to answer the questions I bring up here. Please explain to me why the fact that the South Pole gets cold enough to freeze CO2 out of the atmosphere is not a factor in the study of the ice cores. The only experiment on man made CO2 that is given any credit. Why does it agree with Greenland when accounting for for Calcium carbonate when Greenland does not go below -78.5 degrees celcius. I'd like to know.
And what exactly is the optimum (ppm) of CO2 in the atmosphere. It can't be zero nor more than 5% or all life on earth perishes. So what is the number. Funny but I have yet to see an expert answer these questions. Why is that?
No4) I asked open ended questions as did the site. Instead of trying to answer you claim ignorance and direct me to a site that does not speak to the fact that dry ice forms on the upper levels of Antartic Ice and then sublimates when the temparature rises nor does it state what the optimum level of CO2 in the atmosphere should be. What is the point of answering if nothing in your answer is relevant. As to who if you actually read the site you see it was the Cambridge press and the organization hired by US Congress to report on it.
Who says it is the Antartic Ice cores. Well the Science Channel, the Global Warming documentary by some liberal group that was in the theatters two years back, wikipedia, several sicence sites, the Combridge Press US Report on Global Climate Change sent to Congress, ariticles in science magazines. All go back to the Antartic Ice Cores after explaining the many faults of every other evidence, period. No one disagrees with this that it is considered the premium evidence. I don't dispute it either. I ask merely how dry ice forming in Antarctica affects the study which says CO2 levels have spiked like a hockey stick in 50 years. No conspircacy, I don't know but I suspect they should exagerate them. Hence the reason for the question? Why do you treat everyione else as if they are stupid when you admit you don't know anymore than they do?
An opinion can be less than intellectually honest, afact can only be innaccurate.
How you feel about an individual reciting a fact has 0 bearing on its accuracy especially in scinece. Your very attitude of insufferable domineering arrogance is the prime reason that Lee Smolin laments in "The Trouble with Physics" for their not being a nobel prize in theoretical physics granted in 25 years.
Qutie frankly sir that can of obtuseness when it comes to th field of scientific inquiry offends me. It is the number one reason that scientific endeavors should be funded privatlely and not through a monopolistic monolithic government. Any scientific inquiry even incorrect ones bring knowledge. The idea that the ather was solid in the 1900's and atoms were knots in the ather while wrong led to several discoveries in how knots were made. You are not trying to correct or expalin your position. You are just trying to insult and troll.
No 1) is irrelevant since that money isn't being put to waste, pollution is bad, waste is bad and switching over to "greener" energy is better(I would disagree with many environmentalists and consider Nuclear to be comparitavely more green). If you're taking data from a biased site, then it's less likely to be of use.
3) Explain why for which?
The actual specific CO2 numbers are irrelevant, it's the comparative magnitude, which is much greater. The fact that CO2 freezes doesn't actually make that much difference in the long run. Also it still doesn't explain why the arctic is melting. Again, it's not "just" warming, it's climate change. The overall long run effect is to accelerate and amplify the earth's natural warming, and possibly eventual cooling period, but there are all kinds of weather anomalies caused by the high levels of CO2 in the atmosphere. We SHOULDN'T be pumping CO2 into the air, regardless.
Just because you can identify one or two holes in the theory does not all the other evidence goes away. CO2 gas STILL causes a Greenhouse effect and the arctic is STILL melting faster than it should. There is no way in hell I'm going to be able to answer all your questions especially when you purposely seek out specific things. Why don't you ask a climatologist? If you're really that determined, you'd do something along those lines instead of using it in petty arguments online.
If you do read new Scientist, then that article I linked to which I unfortunately can't read in full since I don't seems to explain most of your issues anyway.
This shit makes no sense. Just because it's "government" funded doesn't make the results biased, given how many different governments involved, and the fact that the last US Administration had a vested interested in global warming NOT being man caused. So I don't know what you're talking about. Either you're talking about several world governments, which means it's not monolithic, or you're talking about the Bush Administration of the US which was against the eventual results published(or some other country in specific, meaning you'll need to tell me). I think your paranoia over socialism is over-riding any sense here.
If it's "privately" funded, it'll serve the interests of capitalism which will be whatever makes money at the moment. Preparing for climate change is not profitable except in the very long run, so of course it's not going to be in the interest of many businesses. Some things are good private, some things are good public. Most of the best countries in the world have made this realisation. There is both private and publically funded scientific research out there.
Though really fussing over where the money comes from is silly. The wider community of climate scientists agree. I posted the article demonstrating how this was measured. If you have some evidence to back your conspiracy theory, then by all means present it.
The left says that the increase in ppm over the last 50 years is indicative of manmade effects. They further state that it is evidence that we must now control the level of CO2 in our atmosphere or multitudes of bad events will happen. They Suppress and try to downplay any evidence that a warmer environment could have any beneficial effect.
When you question the only study they have that shows the evidence of the raise in CO2 levels that they themselves will state is legitimate or try to get into any debate as to what the exact ppm should be they freak out responding with distortions, lies, ad hominem attacks. It is time to understand that they could care less about the scientific arguments or the effect on the planet. This is due to their distorted control over others lives and the fact that they are luddites.
As shown here the only answers they give is despicable sophistry. There is no further need to even respond to their ridiculousness. They are dishonest to their core.
It's astounding that a reply like this got 6 positive reps. It's just insanity.
"The Left" – why are you trying to turn everything into a partisan debate here? It's a scientific one. Politics should be irrelevant.
I didn't freak out and "ad hominem" you. Also you probably don't even know that simply insulting someone is not an "ad hominem". It involves making an actual argument based on a piece of personal information.
I replied to your post as best I could given I'm not a climatologist. I guarantee a climatologist could answer your questions, and a good 97% of them "believe" in Global Warming.
It's these kind of replies that put people off "the right", though I know for a fact that not every right wing person pulls out this bizarre "righteous" us and them cult mentality, only the really screwy ones.
Mr. Tennapel, you're a fantastic graphic novelist. I own four of your books and plan to buy more. Stick with that and leave ecology and climate modeling to scientists. Everyone needs to get their science from peer-reviewed journals, not political media.
Try scientific journals like Science or Ecology, there are even some climate specific ones. Most local libraries or college libraries have subscriptions that you should be able to check out. SciAm, Discover, NatGeo are all great for getting basic overviews of issues and topics, but you won't get answers there.
Why would they want that?
read a damn book
Try scientific journals like Science or Ecology, there are even some climate specific ones. Most local libraries or college libraries have subscriptions that you should be able to check out. SciAm, Discover, NatGeo are all great for getting basic overviews of issues and topics, but you won't get answers there.
You must be logged in to post a comment.