March 27, 2008 6:43 AM
Iceberg falls from ice shelf; scientists blame global warming
A 38-square mile iceberg has fallen from an Antarctic ice shelf, adding more fodder to the global-warming debate.
Bill Scanlon reports:
Satellite images from the University of Colorado's National Snow and Ice Data Center reveal a 38-square-mile iceberg fell from the Wilkins Ice Shelf, a Connecticut-sized plate of floating ice on Antarctica's southwest peninsula.The fall of the iceberg triggers a runaway disintegration of 220 square miles of the shelf's interior.
Average temperatures in western Antarctica have risen about a degree Fahrenheit each decade for the past half-century, said Ted Scambos, lead scientist at CU's Snow and Ice center, who first spotted the disintegration earlier this month.
The Wilkins Ice Shelf has been intact for at least a few hundred years, but now is in danger of full-scale disintegration, he said. "Warm air and exposure to ocean waves are causing a break-up."
Although just the one iceberg has collapsed so far, most of the rest could fall soon, said Scambos, noting that just one narrow beam of intact ice is protecting the rest of the shelf from further breakup.
March 27, 2008
9:17 AM
Right wing nut writes:
This is all propaganda written by Al Gore...
March 27, 2008
9:51 AM
Jeff writes:
Yep, all part of the normal, expected warming cycle we've been experiencing since the ice-age. Nothing can be done to stop it despite Al Gore's ranting.
A simplified question for all the enviro-wackos out there. If we (people and in your minds, only greedy, ignorant Americans, I'm sure primarily Republicans) are the cause of Global Warming how did we ever get out of the Ice Age? If it wasn't a part of the natural evolution of the planet wouldn't the earth still be frozen tundra?
Reliable, modern weather analysis gear, using the same formulations as today, wasn't available anywhere prior to the 40s-50s so pointing to any warming acceleration data anytime prior to then is without basis.
Incredible that anyone would believe that the actions of humans could change the natural processes of a planet.
Whatever will we earthlings do when we realize that all our knee-jerk reactions have zero impact on this natural process. Of course Al and his ilk will be dead and gone when this realization sinks in. Who will the lefties blame then?
March 27, 2008
10:01 AM
Shaggy writes:
Looks like the little ice age we are still coming out of melted a chunk of ice.
That is what happens when the climate naturally warms up.
Thank goodness for this natural process otherwise mankind would have never been and Earth would still be a frozen planet with no life.
Just think of how far the glaciers have retreated since the time they covered most of North America.
Now that is an incredible journey
March 27, 2008
10:12 AM
JMH writes:
jeff and shaggy have their heads in the sand again. No suprises there.
Listen wingnuts, I know there are natural heating and cooling of the Earth, but it NATURALLY happens over hundreds and thousands of years, now it is happening over a decade. This is not natural.
I know you guys don't like things ike "science" and "facts", but just about every climate expert (other than those "paid" by the gas and oil companies) agrees on this. But Im sure they are all wrong and all are part of the great liberal consperacy.
Also, even if global warming was overstated, what is wrong with cleaning up the enviroment and developing cleaner burning fuels?
March 27, 2008
10:19 AM
benn writes:
Incredible that anyone would believe that the actions of humans could change the natural processes of a planet.
Incredible to think Jeff is dumb enough to believe humans wouldn't change the processes of a planet.
March 27, 2008
10:27 AM
fiesty writes:
Jeff, you are an idiot who is ignoring the facts. It is CLEAR that man's activities have impacted the environment.
FACT: Current CO2 levels, "coincidentally" starting at the time of the industrial revolution, are more than *twice* the *highest* levels ever *naturally* produced in the last 400,000 years. [1]
FACT: In the past 24 years, the arctic ice has shrunk by more than 1/3. [2]
FACT: In the past 7 years, there has been an unprecedented number of major ice shelf breaks. [3]
FACT: Several of the major components of the mass balance of the continental ice sheet have shown significant acceleration and have DOUBLED their ice discharge. [4]
FACT: Over the past 30 years, the earth has warmed by about 1.08°F. However, the rate of acceleration has increased. (Estimates are that the average temperature will rise an additional 2.5° to 10.4° degrees F (1.4° to 5.8° degrees C) by 2100. That rate of increase would be much larger than most past rates of increase.)[5]
FACT: Due to the increased temperature and shrinking of the arctic ice, certain animal populations are decreasing to the point some are facing extinction. Fish, penguins, and polar bears are prime examples. This only began in the past 6 years. [6]
FACT: In the past 150 years, the world's 10 warmest years have all occurred since 1994. 2006 was the warmest on record for the world, with 2007 expected to exceed. [7]
FACT: Storm intensity has begun to dramatically increase- there has been a 63% increase in hurricane intensity and duration linked to higher sea surface temperatures. [8]
FACT: The number of category 4 and 5 hurricanes has almost doubled globally over the past three decades. (Scientists have now concluded that global warming is causing the increased intensity of storms in general, and hurricanes in particular.) [9]
FACT: In just the past 3 years, there have been record storms and hurricanes. For example, 2005 was the year with the most intense Atlantic-basin storm ever recorded (Hurricane Wilma, 2005 was the year with most hurricanes in the Atlantic on record, 2006 was the year with one of the strongest tropical cyclones to ever hit the South Pacific (cyclone Monica made landfall in Queensland, Australia), and 2004 was the year with the first hurricane ever recorded in the South Atlantic (Hurricane Catarina made landfall 500 miles south of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil). [10]
* references available upon request
March 27, 2008
10:34 AM
Brian in Evans writes:
re: FACT: In the past 24 years, the arctic ice has shrunk by more than 1/3. [2]
1/3rd????? That is simply NOT true.
March 27, 2008
10:38 AM
fiesty writes:
Brian- see for yourself. Here is the NASA satellite footage, timelapsed from 1979-2003. http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2003/1023esuice.html
http://www.nasa.gov/mpeg/103496main_sea_ice2004_320x240.mpeg
March 27, 2008
10:49 AM
benn writes:
*sarcasm*
But Fiesty - this is just a natural process. As long as I believe it is natural, I don't have to change the way I live, and I don't have to do anything to save the planet from my kids. I don't want anything to challenge my ability to live in my trailer.
Besides that, scientists who spend their lives studying this are just liberal stooges who are out there to scare all us uneducated folk.
*sarcasm off*
Thanks for joining the thread fiesty. I saw your posts on the news-story yesterday, and you have some valuable insight to provide.
March 27, 2008
11:07 AM
Hogar De Vuelta (العودة) "Ask not what your country can do for you...." writes:
Chronically what is happening is a very different thing than proving that it is not a natural phenomenon.
March 27, 2008
11:13 AM
Matt writes:
According to Al Gore, temps should only be going up because they're directly tied to CO2, of which more and more is being put into the atmosphere every day. But in reality, thats not happening. Global warming peddlers are just trying to be fashionable. Lets wait until scientists can agree on whats going on.
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2008/20080313_coolest.html
March 27, 2008
11:14 AM
fiesty writes:
Hogar-
Man is not responsible for global warming/cooling since it's indisputable that the earth goes through natural cycles. What man IS responsible for, given fact #1, is that his actions have radically affected the current cycle. Given the seriousness of natural warming/cooling cycles (many species go extinct from starvation, exposure, etc), how bad will the current cycle be due to man's actions? Especially since we are ALREADY beginning to see those effects?
March 27, 2008
11:21 AM
Jeff writes:
Yep Feisty,
There were never any big storms before.... Al Gore became a weather-bug. The earth never experienced any hurricanse, big snowstorms, flooding, hot summers, receding glaciers or dry spells. Your facts are predictably skewed and unsustainable. It won't happen but would be a show of sincerity if the scientists which have a different opinion may be allowed to voice their opinion without fear of death threats or other reprisals. The Dem thugs want to keep the popular opinion (ie; Facts) on their side and will prevent any alternate view from surfacing.
JMH - Still a dolt but hits the nail on the head. The reason for this now? To get a Dem elected. The rationale? Who could possibly be against the side benefits of cleaning up the planet (Que the pictures of huge landfills)? Afterall, don't Republicans want clean drinking water for their kids (Que the crying child sound)? In the process let's make sure we transfer as much wealth from those who have it to those who don't (Que the pictures of the starving children from a third world county that we're sending millions to but are corruptly skimmed off by the do-gooders themselves).
*sarcasm on
Yep, this is all about science.
*sarcasm off
March 27, 2008
11:44 AM
Shaggy writes:
Just wait until the man made global warming hoaxers persuade the Government to needlessly spend billions of tax payers dollars to combat a natural occurrence that will have no effect.
Hopefully they don't persuade the Government to pull out of Iraq so that the billions of dollars spent there isn't wasted.
March 27, 2008
11:48 AM
jay writes:
shag if you were worried about billions...strike that...TRILLIONS being wasted in iraq...you're a little behind the curve.
March 27, 2008
11:50 AM
fiesty writes:
Amazing. You talk about scientists being "allowed to voice their opinion without fear of death threats or other reprisals" if they disagree with GW, yet it was the pro-GW scientists being suppressed!! Here's a pro-GW scientist who says the government is actively suppressing evidence supporting global warming.
Facts are facts, not "predictably skewed and unsustainable". Either something has happened, or it hasn't. Here is a situation where the evidence is contrary to your opinion, so you are just going to dismiss it without valid cause. You can't argue with it's validity since it's proven, so spout off vague comments without substantiation.
March 27, 2008
12:12 PM
Matt writes:
Do you belive that James Hansen, the same guy who pushed Global Cooling and is now pushing Global Warming doesen't have an agenda?
http://www.investors.com/editorial/editorialcontent.asp?secid=1501&status=article&id=275267681833290
March 27, 2008
12:16 PM
Shaggy writes:
jay I don't know where you are getting you numbers but whatever the case it would only be wasted if we betray the Iraqi people and pull out.
You know...the Iraqi people...the ones who are in their own Country Legally.
The ones who want to better their OWN country.
March 27, 2008
12:25 PM
jay writes:
if you have to base your position on the need to disregard scientific consensus and insist on the belief in conspiracy theories....what does that say about the strength of your position?
No one is talking about abandoning the iraqi people, shag. that is yet another strawman argument
March 27, 2008
12:29 PM
Jeff writes:
Fiesty,
Save your drivel. There is no man-made 'acceleration' to the current Global Warming trend. It's entirely natural and expected. We are mearly inhabitants of earth and we're only able to spend a set amount of time here. Eventually we'll expire as a species. This is the fallacy of 'scientists' as they don't accept that we're only a small fragment of the bigger picture. Although this won't happen for thousands and thousands of years, it's inevitable and there isn't anything you or I can do about it. We will adapt as best possible over the years but thinking that we can change this outcome based on putting in different light-bulbs is blind stupidity.
In the meantime, get your mitts out of my pockets and clean-up your own backyard.
March 27, 2008
12:43 PM
just sayin' writes:
I'm waiting for the oil industry experts to come out with their spin before I make up my mind.
March 27, 2008
12:45 PM
Hogar De Vuelta (العودة) "Ask not what your country can do for you...." writes:
fiesty,
I am not denying what is happening, I am simply not convinced that man is the cause. There is no way to scientifically prove that man is responsible, because you cannot repeat climate. We do not have a control planet to compare against a planet with no human activity and a planet with even more human activity. Just because scientists and others believe human activity is the cause doesn't believe that it can be proved.
Just like the "scientists" were wrong about their dire predictions for hurricanes in 2006 following Katrina, I believe that time will show the "scientists" to be wrong about their predictions for the future. One abnormal year (2005) with 31 storms and 15 hurricanes does not prove anything. Last year there were 20 storms and 6 hurricanes, which is closer to a normal year. If the predictions from the chicken little crowd were true, we should not see a normalization of the number of storms.
Wasn't it the "scientists" who told us that ethanol was one of the solutions to global warming? But now the "scientists" are telling that ethanol causes global warming.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=18784732
So which "scientists" do I listen to?
March 27, 2008
12:47 PM
benn writes:
I think Jeff takes the award for the 'Most Ignorant Poster of the Day' at RTL.
March 27, 2008
12:55 PM
the sky may be falling, maybe not writes:
This might be a problem--yet the bigger problem is who do we believe? There seems to be conflicting information and vested interests on both sides of this issue. Until the smoke clears, guess we'll just have to go with calling this a normal process occurring as part of our earth's ongoing transformation, no matter what we do.
The so-called "third world" is rapidly developing, and like it or not, they're doing the same polluting, etc. that the "developed" countries did as they developed. And who's going to tell these countries to "be nice and stop all this polluting" that is contributing to the so-called global warming??? Oh, and better to not use the word "evolved", in place of "developed" lest the wingnuts start bouncing off the walls.
March 27, 2008
1:04 PM
Deniers are the new Creationists writes:
"There seems to be conflicting information"
Nope. There is no conflict in this debate anymore because there no longer is a debate. There is dissent fostered by politicians and industry lobbyists, but there is no credible debate.
March 27, 2008
1:06 PM
Shaggy writes:
Thats right jay...now even the democratic candidates have come to the realization that an immediate withdrawl would probably not happen...unlike their previous statements.
Jeff, don't bother.
They don't understand how fragile and vulnerable mankind really is...we are nothing but a blink in the life of earths existence... if we want to save mankind we need to look at the stars...eventually the earth will either get hit by a stroid, the sun will burn itself out, yellowstones huge caldera exploding like it does every 600,000 years and 600,000 years have passed since the last time it exploded and is due, Iran lobs a nuke at Israel.
Any number of things would cause the disappearance of mankind.
But the one event that would be a sure thing to be the end of mankind would be if all the Conservatives died suddenly and no one was left to sustain the Liberals and Democrats.
They simply would not be capable of sustaining themselves.
March 27, 2008
1:28 PM
Jeff writes:
Thanks Benn,
I always like to be recognized as one who defies the fear-mongering, treasonous, treacherous, tactics and positions of the left. Just like when you pee your bed at night, I get a warm feeling from combatting idiocy.
Shaggy as usual you're right on and this one is way too funny HA! HA! HA! HA!
If there's a buck to be made by redistributing wealth, the democrats will find it. Global Warming is just the latest in this long list.
All you lefties take a good close look at the benefactors of all the 'green' technology, also don't miss out on the snobbery of the left in disregarding any 'rich' businesses who develop or convert to so-called 'green' technology. The old saying is still valid. Not invented here.
March 27, 2008
1:33 PM
Matt writes:
"There is no conflict in this debate anymore because there no longer is a debate"
This is totalitarian speak, typical of lefties who live in echo chambers. Here are 400 Scientists from 24 different countries to prove you wrong.
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport#report
March 27, 2008
1:34 PM
jay writes:
"Thats right jay...now even the democratic candidates have come to the realization that an immediate withdrawl would probably not happen...unlike their previous statements"
No shaggy, you're lying. neither obama nor clinton have talked about total and immediate withdrawal as a viable option. strike two
March 27, 2008
1:47 PM
Jeff writes:
'Deniers are the new creationists' wrote:
"There is no conflict in this debate anymore because there no longer is a debate. There is dissent fostered by politicians and industry lobbyists, but there is no credible debate."
Michael Crichton said it best:
"Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.
"Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus.
"Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus."
Stick that in your corn-cob and suck on it (don't light it as it would contribute to 'Man-made Global Warming')
Ha!
March 27, 2008
1:54 PM
history buff writes:
The way I see it, we are not going to develop widespread alternatives to oil anytime in the next 50 years. The world economy and the standard of living in the industrial world is dependent upon the exploitation of cheap energy. But we have reached the peak of oil resources, so as supplies dwindle, there will be more wars like the one in Iraq over natural resources. And as the cost of oil rises due to increased demand and shrinking supply, we will not be able to sustain our current standard of mass consumption.
Global warming will contribute to a decline in food production as well as our standard of living, so there may be an invisible hand at work that causes the world population to shrink with the dissipation of natural resources. Thus, the effects of global warming attributable to mankind will diminish as wars, famine, and economic decline reduce population and bring the world back into balance.
Future generations will regain the great outdoors that existed before the Industrial Revolution, and if wars do not destroy our knowledge and civilization, they will live in a better world. But that may be too much to expect from the human race.
March 27, 2008
2:00 PM
Hogar De Vuelta (العودة) "Ask not what your country can do for you...." writes:
HB,
I think Nanosolar is the first of many breakthroughs that will occur in the solar energy field.
http://www.efluxmedia.com/news_Nanosolar_Announces_Cheap_Solar_Panels_11976.html
March 27, 2008
2:15 PM
JW writes:
"The way I see it, we are not going to develop widespread alternatives to oil anytime in the next 50 years."
We already have one; Coal. The whole reason we switched from coal to oil as our main energy source was cost. Flip the equation, and we can switch back. We have alot of coal.
Additionally, I was reading about oil in the USA, and we have twice (or three times, I forget exactly) the proven reserves of the Saudis located right here in the Colorado/Wyoming/Utah area. The problem is its all in shale. New tech is working on a quick/cheap way to extract it.
I wonder what $500 billion in alternative energy R&D would have done for us. How about $1 trillion? Think the cost/benefit would have been better than Iraq?
March 27, 2008
2:16 PM
history buff writes:
I may have to divert some of my capital investment from wine and railroad stocks to Nanosolar. And, this is evidence that my theory of the great invisible hand mitigating man-made global warming is valid.
March 27, 2008
2:43 PM
KW writes:
JW - Two things to keep in mind when looking at the "cost" of the war.
1) The total "cost" includes the portion of the federal budget that pays for our standard military operating expenses. The $ trillion dollar (headline grabbing) figures being broadcast are not "additional cost" to the normal peacetime operating expenses of maintaining our military.
2) Looking at the federal budget in it's entirety, the portion going to fund the war is equal to appx $5 for every $100 spent by the federal government. Iraq is only costing us a very small percentage of the total cost of running this country.
March 27, 2008
2:55 PM
JW writes:
KW,
1. That is not the info I have. The Trillion dollar figure includes costs of the war only (all those "Emergency Funding Bills" they have been using to keep the war costs Seperate from the budget) as well as fixing all that is broken, and medical costs for our military boys and girls.
2. Whether or not thats true...$500 billion in R&D is $500 billion in R&D.
March 27, 2008
3:04 PM
history buff writes:
How much of the Iraq War is paid as we kill, and how much is deferred for another generation?
March 27, 2008
4:35 PM
Hogar De Vuelta (العودة) "Ask not what your country can do for you...." writes:
Help, I've fallen off the shelf and I can't get up!
March 27, 2008
6:28 PM
fiesty writes:
Sorry guys, had to bail out earlier since my husband's father had a heart attack. He's on his way now, and I taking the first day off in months. What a birthday.
There is no "conflicting information". You simply have skeptics (whether laymen or the odd scientist) who try to come up with reasons to discount the FACTS.
Today we had yet another ice shelf break; just the latest in a string that started in 2000. Yet skeptics say "oh, its nothing to worry about." You can watch the artic ice shrink by more than 1/3 in barely 24 years, ("coincidentally" right before all these ice breaks), and the skeptic has nothing to say other than it's just "liberal hysteria"- which is a strawman since it doesn't address what occurred.
March 27, 2008
6:42 PM
Shaggy writes:
Hog,
I just threw you a life line bro...grab it...we can't let an academy award nominee just slowly float and melt away;)
March 27, 2008
8:23 PM
KW writes:
Good one Hogar!
Fiesty - If the scientists are purporting they (supposedly) have concrete evidence proving "man-made" global warming, why do they cloak themselves behind the idea that any questions of credibility to their theories should never be addressed?
We all need to do our part to keep the earth healthy, but putting forth dooms day predictions tends more to isolate people from understanding any true threat from natural climate change than is gained by fear mongering. Especially when they deliver the promise of bringing a savior, to avert these so called perceived perils, thru greater taxation
March 27, 2008
9:24 PM
Anonymous writes:
I love this title
"Iceberg falls from ice shelf; scientists blame global warming"
have you seen the Gop Version ?
"Iceberg falls from ice shelf;
Bushies blame overactive imagination"
March 28, 2008
12:19 PM
Hogar De Vuelta (العودة) "Ask not what your country can do for you...." writes:
fiesty,
Again I say that I am not disputing the FACTS about what is happening. I watched a documentary on the last meltdown, Ice Age: The Meltdown. It was just as informative as Gore's movie, but a lot more fun to watch.
March 28, 2008
12:50 PM
fiesty writes:
KW- that's all nice and dandy, but it's not an excuse to be a skeptic. I have provided the links to the data that clearly shows man has affected this cycle, and data that GW is occurring. Period. Using claimed reactions of scientists is no excuse to disregard evidence you don't like.
March 28, 2008
2:25 PM
Hogar De Vuelta (العودة) "Ask not what your country can do for you...." writes:
fiesty,
you have provided links that voice the opinions of scientists that man is the cause for the latest warming trend. Where is the study information that eplains 492 inches of snow at Wolf Creek this winter?
March 28, 2008
2:55 PM
fiesty writes:
Hogar- I have NOT posted "opinions", but FACTS. For example, ice core data showing that current CO2 levels are more than twice the highest ever naturally produced is a data fact, not an opinion. Watching the arctic shrink by more than 1/3 in 24 years is not an opinion, but an observable fact. New temperature, sea surface temperature, and storm intensity records are not opinions, not validated facts. Unprecedented numbers of ice shelf breaks in the last six years is not opinion, but observable fact.
The problem arises when skeptics try to say 1) this occurrences are nothing to worry about, or 2) argue the cause for them.
Regarding your "where is the study information that explains 492 inches of snow at Wolf Creek this winter?", that is a blatant fallacy. The FACT is that while different pockets of the country have experienced some cold winters here and there, the overall trend is warmer winters. Measurements show that over the last century the earth’s climate has warmed overall, in all seasons, and in most regions.
For example, climate skeptics mislead the public when they claim that the winter of 2003–2004 was the coldest ever in the northeastern United States. That winter was only the 33rd coldest in the region since records began in 1896. Furthermore, a single year of cold weather in one region of the globe is not an indication of a trend in the global climate, which refers to a long-term average over the entire planet.
After reviewing this board, it is evident that you, and the skeptics here, are the ones spouting off unvalidated OPINIONS, whereas GW proponents can at least backup what they have to say with actual facts and data. Until skeptics can actually substantiate their position with some real evidence and data, then they have no validicy.
March 28, 2008
2:57 PM
fiesty writes:
Sorry, should be "but" instead of "not", in front of "observable fact".
March 28, 2008
4:46 PM
ice watch writes:
It amazes me you all have nothing better to do than volley back and forth
March 29, 2008
8:41 AM
Holier Than Thou writes:
I just dropped by to make a list of idiots because this subject makes that quite easy:
Jeff
Shaggy
Brian in Evans
Hogar de Vuelta
KW
Did I miss anyone?
Conservative commentators who tell these feeble-minded nut-jobs what to believe, think, and say have been right about so much stuff, haven't they? Bush was going to restore integrity and honor the to White House. Bush was going to keep the country safe. Iraq had stockpiles of WMD including nuclear weapons and poison gas. The war in Iraq was going to be quick, easy, and cheap because the Iraqis would welcome our troops with flowers and tears of joy. The trillion dollars already wasted came out someone else's budget. We must honor our troops by killing more of them. Bush was going to balance the federal budget, save the economy, catch Osama bin Laden, destroy Al Qaeda, and make America admired and respected by the rest of the world. Don't believe the weather reports, your thermometer, the early flowers, the new insect infestations, the melting permafrost, disappearing glaciers, mass extinctions, or any of the scientific evidence...
Just tell them to ignore the thermometer conspiracy and tune in to Rush Limbaugh for the weather report.
March 29, 2008
9:19 AM
Matt writes:
fiesty,
Look at some of the links I've posted with also contain some undeniable facts. Don't just pick and choose the ones which fit what you'd like to believe. Although there has been a slight overall warming this century, there hasn’t been any warming for about 8 years. You only look at the big piece of ice that broke off while ignoring that the Antartic ice sheet has been actually GROWING. (link below) Why in the world would you believe anybody who says that they know exactly how the Earth's weather patterns are supposed to behave yet they can't predict the weather more than 5 days out? How is anything we do supposed to be able to change the weather more to our liking anyway? One link you put up was about James Hansen who receives grants in the name of Global Warming, you don’t seem to question him at all. He’s the same guy who once peddled Global Cooling and is now peddling the fashionable and grant worthy Global Warming idea. As history repeats itself, the GW theory will more than likely go the way of the Global Cooling theory. Let’s put the hysteria on hold and give scientists more time to take a look at the situation before you allow yourself to be used as a tool by people who have something to gain, like Hansen and Al Gore who has made millions from his ‘carbon credit’ company. Environmentalists like ELF and Al Gore might have good intentions but never consider the total picture, it’s all about getting other people to act in accordance with their own conclusions and ideas. Go watch Penn and Teller’s ‘Bullshit’ episode on recycling and see how the band wagon you’re on gets started.
The Ice Sheet is actually growing:
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=f1f2f75f-802a-23ad-4701-a92b4ebbccbf&Issue_id
March 29, 2008
5:20 PM
Holier Than Thou writes:
Whoops, I missed putting Matt on the idiot list:
Jeff
Shaggy
Brian in Evans
Hogar de Vuelta
KW
Matt
Thanks, Matt! Your name has now been officially added to the certified anti-science idiot list. Ignore that thermometer and tune in to Ann Coulter for the latest weather and climate information. Did I miss anyone else?
March 29, 2008
7:08 PM
Matt writes:
For somebody who claims to be holier than everybody you never meet, you should be able to come up with something better than a threat of putting me on your ‘bad’ list. While you're compiling lists and calling anybody names who points out scientific evidence that refutes your master’s assertions, go ahead and put NOAA's scientists on it since they just established that the winter of 2008 was the coolest in 8 years.
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2008/20080313_coolest.html
March 30, 2008
12:57 AM
Hazardous_T writes:
The anthropomorphic global warming propaganda can be summed up in two words, "research grants".
Those that grovel at the feet of Charlatan in Chief Al Gore always seem to miss that gigantic point. The global warming scaremongers are the Peter Venkmans of real science, wanting to chase ghosts on the public dime.
A few other points they miss:
At sea level the atmosphere consists of 78% nitrogen, 21% oxygen and 1% ALL other gasses, about .4% is CO2. As you rise in altitude the percentage of oxygen and CO2 decreases and the nitrogen and the lighter gasses increases. The reason for that is called gravity. CO2 is heavier than oxygen and falls out of the atmosphere fairly quickly.
CO2 is a naturaly occuring compound and is not now,ever has or ever will be a pollutant, in fact higher C02 levels promote increased plant growth. That would explain the tropics vs timberline.
The best these supposed scientists can come up with is corn ethanol which poses much bigger problems than petrolium in terms of production, refinement, storage, transportation, envoronmental impacts and the economy.
When ethanol is used as fuel it creates ozone at ground level which is a known pollutant and unlike CO2 that wants to absorb into the ground, ozone wants to float and is prevented by the heavier gasses pressing down on it.
In the 70s the oil and automotive industries were forced rightfully to clean up their products by removing sulfur and lead, developing emmision controls to remove hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide. The result is we have millions more cars on the road and only a small fraction of the pollution.
Like Venkman these charlatans should be cast into the private sector where results are the measure. A few may get lucky and catch a few ghosts but my money is on the fact that most would end up bagging groceries at Wild Oats.