Comments on: The Antarctic is Half Full http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/dtennapel/2009/04/22/the-antarctic-is-half-full/ Sun, 21 Mar 2010 05:51:21 -0700 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Concerned Student http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/dtennapel/2009/04/22/the-antarctic-is-half-full/comment-page-3/#comment-1778046 Concerned Student Mon, 15 Mar 2010 11:16:36 +0000 http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/?p=112166#comment-1778046 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. 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.

]]> By: Firestarter http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/dtennapel/2009/04/22/the-antarctic-is-half-full/comment-page-3/#comment-1778066 Firestarter Mon, 15 Mar 2010 04:35:16 +0000 http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/?p=112166#comment-1778066 read a damn book read a damn book

]]> By: Concerned Student http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/dtennapel/2009/04/22/the-antarctic-is-half-full/comment-page-1/#comment-1778058 Concerned Student Mon, 15 Mar 2010 04:34:23 +0000 http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/?p=112166#comment-1778058 Why would they want that? Why would they want that?

]]> By: Concerned Student http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/dtennapel/2009/04/22/the-antarctic-is-half-full/comment-page-3/#comment-1778050 Concerned Student Mon, 15 Mar 2010 04:18:20 +0000 http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/?p=112166#comment-1778050 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. 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.

]]> By: Concerned Student http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/dtennapel/2009/04/22/the-antarctic-is-half-full/comment-page-3/#comment-1778042 Concerned Student Mon, 15 Mar 2010 04:09:40 +0000 http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/?p=112166#comment-1778042 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. 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.

]]> By: L.R. Weizel http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/dtennapel/2009/04/22/the-antarctic-is-half-full/comment-page-3/#comment-682666 L.R. Weizel Sun, 16 Aug 2009 00:36:52 +0000 http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/?p=112166#comment-682666 "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. "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.

]]> By: L.R. Weizel http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/dtennapel/2009/04/22/the-antarctic-is-half-full/comment-page-3/#comment-682658 L.R. Weizel Sun, 16 Aug 2009 00:33:21 +0000 http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/?p=112166#comment-682658 It's astounding that a reply like this got 6 positive reps. It's just insanity. It's astounding that a reply like this got 6 positive reps. It's just insanity.

]]> By: Individualist http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/dtennapel/2009/04/22/the-antarctic-is-half-full/comment-page-3/#comment-682094 Individualist Sat, 15 Aug 2009 21:38:20 +0000 http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/?p=112166#comment-682094 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. 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.

]]> By: L.R. Weizel http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/dtennapel/2009/04/22/the-antarctic-is-half-full/comment-page-3/#comment-671434 L.R. Weizel Thu, 13 Aug 2009 01:35:44 +0000 http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/?p=112166#comment-671434 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. 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.

]]> By: L.R. Weizel http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/dtennapel/2009/04/22/the-antarctic-is-half-full/comment-page-3/#comment-669922 L.R. Weizel Wed, 12 Aug 2009 16:30:57 +0000 http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/?p=112166#comment-669922 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. 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.

]]>