Home > Community Lounge > Politics > Once Wsj Starts Talking Melting Ice Caps, You Know Its Game Over For Denialists

Once Wsj Starts Talking Melting Ice Caps, You Know Its Game Over For Denialists

  1. I wonder if our resident et global warming denialist brain trust can admit they are wrong?

    Polar Ice Sheets Melt Faster
    Shrinkage in Greenland, Antarctica Has Sent Ocean Levels Higher, Study Says
    Higher temperatures over the past two decades have caused the polar ice sheets to melt at an accelerating rate, contributing to an almost half-inch rise in global sea levels, according to the most comprehensive study done so far.

    Scientists long have struggled to get a fix on whether the permanent ice sheets of Greenland and Antarctica are gaining or losing ice. Past satellite-based measurements either were limited in scope or suffered from methodological inconsistencies.

    The new study, published Thursday in the journal Science, estimates that the melting of the ice sheets as a whole has raised global sea levels by 11.1 millimeters (0.43 inch) since 1992. That represents one-fifth of the total sea-level increase recorded in that period.
  2. wrong about what?
    The earth goes through geological changes and has for billions of years?

    Or maybe you think it's only 6000, but now all of a sudden it needs our attention/control the past 20 yrs?
  3. No, they will never admit to man-made global warming, even though it's common sense, because to do so would make them question all the other crap they have been fed by the GOP propaganda machine. If the GOP is wrong about something as definitive and provable as AGW then maybe they're wrong about other things and that's something they can't entertain.
  4. When in the past was 8 gigatons of CO2 per year released into the atmosphere from the burning of fossil fuels?

  5. I've noticed a change over the last 20 years. People talk too much. This is the main reason for the increase in CO2.

    People need to shut up.:cool:

    Anyone ride a inner city bus? Black people all talk at the same time. Know what I'm sayin?
  6. Nutmeg, you are starting to crack, friend. Maybe you should take some time away from ET for a bit.
  7. 1)What's a fossil fuel?

    2) Why are you only concerned about it being released in this way?
  8. 125 Leading Scientists (including all the world's top meteorologists) tell the UN to stop lying about man-made climate change and stop pushing bad public policy for a problem that does not exist.

    OPEN CLIMATE LETTER TO UN SECRETARY-GENERAL: Current scientific knowledge does not substantiate Ban Ki-Moon assertions on weather and climate, say 125 scientists.

    The U.K. Met Office recently released data showing that there has been no statistically significant global warming for almost 16 years. During this period, according to the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations rose by nearly 9% to now constitute 0.039% of the atmosphere. Global warming that has not occurred cannot have caused the extreme weather of the past few years. Whether, when and how atmospheric warming will resume is unknown. The science is unclear. Some scientists point out that near-term natural cooling, linked to variations in solar output, is also a distinct possibility.
    The incidence and severity of extreme weather has not increased. There is little evidence that dangerous weather-related events will occur more often in the future. The U.N.’s own Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says in its Special Report on Extreme Weather (2012) that there is “an absence of an attributable climate change signal” in trends in extreme weather losses to date. The funds currently dedicated to trying to stop extreme weather should therefore be diverted to strengthening our infrastructure so as to be able to withstand these inevitable, natural events, and to helping communities rebuild after natural catastrophes such as tropical storm Sandy.
  9. http://richarddawkins.net/news_arti...fic-credibility-in-one-pie-chart#.ULKDcIc8DTo

  10. Only a partisan idiot would sign a letter that begins with this....".The U.K. Met Office recently released data showing that there has been no statistically significant global warming for almost 16 years. During this period, according to the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), carbon dioxide (CO2) " and consider it at all relevant.

    If someone does NOT know how irrelevant this "fact" is (actually a cherry picked two points on a fluctuating chart of yearly average temps)they are simply an idiot, or ignorant, or a partisan hack. I suspect the latter is the case here. There is no change in trend and the trend is up. Over 98% of the world's CLIMATOLOGISTS, not physicists, not meteorologists, not geologists..... CLIMATOLOGISTS concur, the emission of vast quantities of the greenhouse gas CO2, due to the burning of coal, oil and gas, is raising the temperature of the earth. If in fact one were to poll all of the aforementioned scientists who are not climatologists, over 90% would also agree.

    Every science organization in the world also agrees.

    Every university also agrees. Maybe not Bob Jones.

    The fact is is that only a very tiny minority of scientists disagree with the overwhelming evidence. Frankly I have hard time believing that even those scientists signed such a ridiculous document.
  11. [​IMG]

    The 24 who disagree? Petroleum geologists! LOL
  12. OK, thank you. Now I know what I'm dealing with. You don't know what a fossil fuel is and you don't know why burning large quantities of it can release large amounts of CO2. It's obvious now. You are simply an idiot.
  13. Global warming will save lives.
    It will allow soybeans production to increase in Canada and the whole longitude temperate zone. Soybeans have the protein the world needs to feed itself.

    Global warming will increase food production to feed a starving population.

    The negative effects are that people who live along waterways will drown if they don't move. If you look at voting geography it will be mostly democrats and they will likely not have the intelligence to move. This is the biggest problem.

    I have more hope that the Polar bears will survive then the Coastal Democrats.
  14. RCG, You even go to the movie theater with Black audience?
    Lots of Black comedians make a living talking about this stuff. In your mind are they as cracked as Nutmeg?
  15. Sub arctic soils do not support the production of cereal grains to the extent temperate soils do. Furthermore, the circumference of the earth towards the poles is smaller.
  16. I'm not an idiot , I'm just ignorant when it comes to being educated on things that are not true.
  17. blacks think every movie is the rocky horror picture show, audience participation and stupid stuff like back in the ghetto.

    I don't go to movies anymore.
    I HATE having my seat kicked.
    I know it happens by accident occasionally so I let one or two slide.

    Some punk early 20's (four of them were together ) behind me kept kicking my seat .

    I asked nicely 2 times for them to stop.
    Finally I'd had enough.
    I got up, walked to the row behind them all and kicked their seats fvcking hard.

    They all turned around, didn't do a damn thing, which is lucky for them because I was royally pissed.

    I went on to enjoy the show without anybody bothering me , which was nice.
  18. I apologize. I agree that you are not an idiot. You are simply closed-minded. All the charts. facts and opinion of experts will not change your mind. There is nothing that would.

    Come to think of it, being closed minded is WORSE than being an idiot. At least the idiot has an excuse.
  19. well of course, because you are a critical thinker. you need evidence before you will believe something and after all the scientists are just leftists using science to deny god:

    "Without a shred of verifiable and falsifiabl_e evidence to the contrary, 50% of the republican_s don't believe that President Obama was born in the US less than 50 years ago.
    And yet, those same people are certain that 2000 years ago someone called jesus was born in of a virgin in the Middle East, did miracles, died on the cross and resurrecte_d to heaven without a shred of verifiable and falsifiabl_e evidence to support this."
  20. Are you forgetting that co2 is an aerial fertilizer?
  21. Why yes of course I'm close minded to scientific sounding bull shit.

  22. So let me get this straight. I make a post that 100% decimates your original post of global warming, and your only response to that is to change the subject and attack me personally?

    That, my brother, is what desperate non-thinking people do. You were better off to just ignore my post instead of making yourself look like an ass.
  23. No it doesn't decimate anything. To point out errors made by small studies and individual scientists 140 years ago or even forty years ago about climate observations, and then say that therefore today's computer models and satellite-fed observations can be dismissed is the type of retarded thinking that we have come to expect from the flat-earthers.

    But if you want to show how predictive and correct science can be...

    Svante Arrhenius (1859-1927) was a Swedish scientist that was the first to claim in 1896 that fossil fuel combustion may eventually result in enhanced global warming. He proposed a relation between atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations and temperature. He found that the average surface temperature of the earth is about 15oC because of the infrared absorption capacity of water vapor and carbon dioxide. This is called the natural greenhouse effect. Arrhenius suggested a doubling of the CO2 concentration would lead to a 5oC temperature rise. He and Thomas Chamberlin calculated that human activities could warm the earth by adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. This research was a by-product of research of whether carbon dioxide would explain the causes of the great Ice Ages. This was not actually verified until 1987.

    Read more: http://www.lenntech.com/greenhouse-effect/global-warming-history.htm#ixzz2DoaKZaPY
  24. Q: How can I argue with a global warming skeptic?

    A: First, determine whether you're talking to a skeptic, or a denier. A genuine skeptic is someone who can be convinced by evidence, and the scientific evidence for human-caused global warming is overwhelming. (If you're dealing with a flat-earther, don't waste your breath.)

  25. Don't laugh. Did you know there is actually a flat earth society? For real?
  26. Yeah, but I wonder, do the members really believe it or is it like an inside joke?

    Probably should not be surprised given how many people today still deny evolution and GW, and are generally dismissive of science but on the other hand believe in some self-promoting preacher dude promising eternal life died two thousand years ago and then rose but hasn't been seen since.

    And then you have the bigfoot believers, ghost hunters, palm readers, ancient alien fans and psychics. The birthers, 9/11 insiders, chemtrailers and those folks who think using sweetnlow in their coffee will make them lose weight.

    Some people find logic alone inadequate I guess.