Here is what makes no sense to me, except when I factor in the neocon regressives. Decades ago, scientists warned of a global warming that would result in climate change, destruction of the ozone, and death of both wildlife and animal life that could eventually disrupt food supply, drinking water, etc. They made this scientific prediction based on what they saw from the pollution into the atmosphere by internal combustion engines and other man made contributions. These scientists were of course attacked by the right wing, who saw corporate profits and the American lifestyle were in danger if we actually treated our earth as something other than a garbage dump. Well, now it is quite clear that the earth is warming. Do these scientists, the ones who predicted these events now get credit from the right wing? Nope. Were there any other "naturalists" predicting we would "naturally" begin to warm? Nope. Did the Bible predict global warming? Nope. So why aren't we doing anything about it, and listening to those scientists who had vision based on science? Because the right wing is still fearful of the decline in profits of corporate America, and a change in lifestyle. http://news.independent.co.uk/world/science_technology/article303492.ece
Same reason fish move from warmer waters to colder waters. http://www.truthout.org/issues_05/051305EC.shtml
That link was about the North Sea. I thought this thread was about anarctic ice sheets that are either getting bigger or smaller. Or are you changing the subject since you have no explanation why some get bigger while others get smaller. DS
This thead is about global warming. The effects are seen in displacement and disruptions. The ice shelf collapse is a symptom, not a cause of global warming.
Science people are just nuts. They look at Panangea where one of the continents needs a 40% change in size to fit and they think the continents are floating on top of the ocean or something. They refuse to look at the idea that if volcanoes are increasingly active above the water line they should be proportionally active beneath the water line and have to attribute all ice reduction to atmospheric temperature changes....... then they get on the liberal TV news and tell us they are the "voice of reason" and should be leading the political charge at all times.
Great logic Z10, its all the "neocon regressives" fault, or specifically did you mean George Bush's fault? Funny how you mention blah blah blah last 10years but of course Clinton gets a COMPLETE pass. But post whatever makes you feel good Z10, whatever makes you feel good.
Bush rolled back much of the work Clinton did on reduction of pollution, as it reduced profits of Corporate America. Clinton didn't do all that he could, but Bush is the worst environmental president ever. The neocon regressives refuse to give credit to the scientists who correctly predicted global warming, and who continue to predict major problems if we don't address it. There was a time, a hundred years ago or more, when conservatives cared about nature....they understood the need to preserve and protect God's creation. That time is long gone....
Ok, Z10, I actually think you are right on that. Bush has been a major disappointment to even a neocon regressive like me
Sure had me fooled as it's titled: "Ice Shelf collapse was ..." SO again, if global warming caused the collapse, why is the ice field on the other side of Antarctica getting bigger? And why are the dry valleys on this continent getting colder? And why is James Hansen, the father of global warming, now saying: "Emphasis on extreme scenarios may have appropriate at one time, when the public and decision-makers were relatively unaware of the global warming issue. Now, however, the need is for demonstrably objective climateâ¦scenarios consistent with what is realistic under current conditions." What it seems he is saying, is now that we got your attention, let's be realistic. And his realism says that the worst is over with maybe another 0.5C to go. Or has Hansen become a Rep/Theocrat? DS