On this past weekend’s edition of the "McLaughlin Group," panelist Eleanor Clift of "Newsweek" insisted global warming is man made, and called contrary opinions "theological arguments," and moderator John McLaughlin referred to those who do not accept Clift’s premise as "neanderthals." Ms. Clift also displayed her environmentalist sympathies, proclaiming "...[Republican Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma] has, like, a zero rating from the environmentalists. And he, thankfully, will not be chairing that [Environmental and Public Works] committee anymore in the Senate."
In the opening segment of the program, McLaughlin brought up the subject of global warming. Token conservative on the panel, Pat Buchanan, asserted that though global warming is occurring, there is a real debate as to the cause, but he was outnumbered by his fellow panelists: Jay Carney of "Time," Clarence Page of "The Chicago Tribune," and Ms. Clift.
Eleanor Clift was the first to dismiss Buchanan’s argument, which led to McLaughlin referring to those who agree with Buchanan as "Neanderthals:"
Eleanor Clift: "The science is overwhelmingly in support of the fact that the phenomenon is happening, and a large part of it is man-made. The figures are dramatic. And what Pat has just laid out is really a theological argument that's made by a very small number of people in the political world."
John McLaughlin: "The Neanderthals."
Eleanor Clift: "The Neanderthals, okay -- not to put too fine a point on it."
Later, Jay Carney alleged that the science against global warming as a man made phenomenon is being driven by the oil and gas industries. However, there are credible scientists who agree that global warming is not man made, William Gray, Dr. Roy Spencer, and Patrick Michaels come to mind. Carney also mentioned reducing our dependence on foreign oil, this notion led to a feisty exchange with Mr. McLaughlin:
Jay Carney: "...If we could find a way to reduce our dependence on the oil of autocracies in the Middle East, we could solve a lot of problems."
John McLaughlin: "Do you want to propagate a lot of wonderful farm lands with windmills? Is that what you have in mind? Do you think solar energy can do it? We've been doing programs around here for over 20 years on the photoelectric cell."
Jay Carney: "Are you so convinced that we are so limited in our capacities to find scientific solutions to major problems that we should just give up, drain the earth of oil and then leave it to some future generation?"
Following this exchange, Clarence Page brought up the name of Senator Inhofe, who "thankfully" according to Clift won’t be chairing the Senate EPW Committee any longer:
Clarence Page: "Well, you know, Jim Inhofe is from Oklahoma, of course. I mean, to be against oil in Oklahoma is like being against gasohol in Illinois; I mean, certainly corn farmers and sugar cane farmers, et cetera. I mean, there's a lot of different alternative fuels. Jay is absolutely right. We have got to reduce our dependency on oil, and that is transcending party lines now. And Eleanor's also right to say that we need to talk about the environmental impact of these –"
Eleanor Clift: "Senator Inhofe"
John McLaughlin: "Before you get into any demonstrations of the disasters that will occur, do you remember the Y2 problem that we had at the turn of"
Pat Buchanan: "Y2K?"
John McLaughlin: "Do you remember that?"
Eleanor Clift: "That is a totally different magnitude."
Pat Buchanan: "We're going to run out of oil."
Eleanor Clift: "That was worries about whether the computers could make the transition. This is -- we're talking about a 10-year window here. And if we don't act over the next 10 years, it's going to be irreversible."
Pat Buchanan: "John, the purpose of this"
Eleanor Clift: "And Senator Inhofe, by the way"
Pat Buchanan: Okay.
Eleanor Clift: "-- has, like, a zero rating from the environmental"
Pat Buchanan: "So what?"
Eleanor Clift: "Excuse me -- has, like, a zero rating from the environmentalists. And he, thankfully, will not be chairing that committee anymore in the Senate."
There is significant debate as to the causes of global warming, yet this panel was yet another example of the media skewing their coverage in favor of the argument that global warming is man made.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
The irony here is thick. Th
November 28, 2006 - 18:08 ET by Ten7sThe irony here is thick. The fact is that most scientists won't even opine because they fear of being blacklisted by the "Man-Made Global Warming" Zealots on the Liberal Left who control most Universities and Foundations. And the scientific arguments against "Man-Made Global Warming" are not theological unless people are still worshipping the SUN and VOLCANOS.
Wow, we're going to run out
November 28, 2006 - 18:22 ET by ckc1227Wow, we're going to run out of oil in 10 years? According to Al Gore, the world is going to end in 10 years too. 2016 is not looking too good right now, lol.
Funny how the chick is downplaying Y2K now as nothing more than a numbers glitch, but at the time it was being promoted as an end-of-the-modern-world scenario.
Al Gore
November 28, 2006 - 19:31 ET by pocomocoPoor Al Gore, he just don't get no respect. However, if the world ends as he says, he'll get all the respect he........... Wait a minute, they'll be no one to respect him. Poor Al Gore.
global warming
November 28, 2006 - 19:12 ET by chillerIs Inhofe's status official? I heard Senator Warner wanted the lead Pubbie postition on that committee....they pulled some creative interpretation of the seniority policies to pull that off because Warner will go along to get along in D.C.
Bad news if so.
Ahhhh.................That's
November 28, 2006 - 20:01 ET byAhhhh.................That's good paranoia! Vintage stuff.
Caution, guilt ahead
November 28, 2006 - 20:08 ET by UnsaneFor some reason I see massive amounts of self-loathing and guilt on the horizon, and they certainly aren't my own since I have none at all...
"Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy." -Sir Winston Churchill, British statesman (1874-1965)
it'll never work...
November 28, 2006 - 20:28 ET by AsmodeusWell, I'd love to see the day when global warming proponents can get the nerve to actually get together and protest the sun or get close enough to a volcano to radically ask it to stop contributing to killing mommy earth...
Eleanor Clift
November 28, 2006 - 18:58 ET by pocomocoEleanor Clift is nothing more than a call-girl. Her pimp is the progressive left.
Significant debate--yes, Mich
November 28, 2006 - 20:06 ET bySignificant debate--yes, Michael--but not in the scientific community I'm afraid. They are "skewing" toward the prevailing scientific opinion.
I'm glad Inhofe will be gone as well, though his fuel $ will probably dry up, poor guy. Barton's gone too. It's like Christmas already.
You are making the mistake of
November 28, 2006 - 20:09 ET by UnsaneYou are making the mistake of thinking that scientists practice mindless, Borg-like group-think like you do.
"Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy." -Sir Winston Churchill, British statesman (1874-1965)
What do you expect. Us neande
November 29, 2006 - 16:27 ET by danboWhat do you expect. Us neanderthals have a lot more going for us than Piltdown man warmers. (Look him up TW) Better science too.
The end of the world has been delayed till after the taxes are collected.
"Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of truth and knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods." Albert Einstein
The power to declare myths, myths
November 29, 2006 - 21:46 ET by UnsaneHey, haven't you heard, danbo? TW (henceforth known to Unsane as guiltwobbler) declared the Greenland finds we discussed earlier a myth. So therefore they must be so since he said so.
"Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy." -Sir Winston Churchill, British statesman (1874-1965)
Do you mean the "garden
November 29, 2006 - 22:25 ET by danboDo you mean the "garden under the sand"? The archaeological excavation of the viking farm in Greenland? Is that what Throatpecker called a myth?
So much for his scientific and ethical honor. If that's what he denies.
Unfortunately, from most of the AGWers (there are a few honerable exceptions) this is not about science at all. It's an enviromental mantra of power. And all of us sceptics have been declaired heritics by their head inquisitor. Torquemata Gore. The burnings at the stake will begin as soon as they have the power.
"Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of truth and knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods." Albert Einstein
Doesn't matter
November 30, 2006 - 08:09 ET by UnsaneNope. Doesn't matter if archeologists discovered ANYTHING on Greenland. It is a myth because guiltwobbler said so.
"Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy." -Sir Winston Churchill, British statesman (1874-1965)
Stick around Wobbler. I hav
November 30, 2006 - 18:34 ET by NL207Stick around Wobbler. I have some more sport and fun I want to have with you. I want to shopw you just how dishonest and distorted some of this 'official science' and its teaching materials are. Look at this chart from out friends at NOAA, ostensibly a government agency.
Jay Carney: "...If we
November 28, 2006 - 20:07 ET by Jack BauerJay Carney: "...If we could find a way to reduce our dependence on the oil of autocracies in the Middle East,
Oh you mean like the US exploiting its own massive oil reserves, ya dumb cluck.
Yeah if ONLY someone could figure out how to do that, say off Florida.
Oh hang on, someone has...
THE FRACKIN' CUBANS and CHINESE.
Proud member of the all-powerful and vast
militarist/industrialist/capitalist/zionist-bagelist complex
Jack, your "galactica&
November 28, 2006 - 21:08 ET by HokieconJack, your "galactica" is showing...
FWIW, we might have enough oil in the rocks in Colorado to eliminate the Saudis, enough oil in the ANWR to eliminate South America, and enough oil off the coasts of the Gulf and Cali to eliminate Russia as importers of oil to the US of A.
Now that we have a extremist lib caucus leading the Congressional Committees and the Blue Dogs beholden to the shrieking Pelosi, we'll just have to open up our wallets wider in order to do those mundane things like go to work. All the while they will be genuflecting to the OPEC gods to please let them buy more oil at their "reasonable" prices. Thank you ELF!!
--Hokiecon
Hokie -- well spotted Starb
November 29, 2006 - 05:15 ET by Jack BauerHokie -- well spotted Starbuck!
Now if only I could get a mental vist from a nookie obsessed, Amazonian blonde Cylon. Or a thumper clone.
Proud member of the all-powerful and vast
militarist/industrialist/capitalist/zionist-bagelist complex
I've said it before and I'll
November 28, 2006 - 20:23 ET by rimskyI've said it before and I'll say it again. Global Warming is a vehicle for gaining control, Globally (the U.N.) and at every other level of government. It plays on the emotions (10 years! Oh my gawd, what are we gonna do!) and people get hysterical at any notion that merely questions the premise or the questions the motivations of its proponents. How can we be so callous as to NOT be totally freaked out by the impending disaster. In the 70's the MsM was spewing about a coming ICE AGE! But that could NEVER be a man made event. No problem, make it Global Warming - much easier to find plausible, man made causes. People like Clift no doubt make a s$$tload of cash appearing on these panels and saying virtually anything to carry their side of the argument, no matter how bizarre it may sound. Whose, on these shows, is going to question them.
Completely agree rimsky. And
November 29, 2006 - 11:26 ET by slaphappyCompletely agree rimsky.
And just wait till the the UN proposes proportional global tax to be paid to 3rd- world and developing countries that are not in the top 5 producers of green house gas...
The UN, underwriters of global policy. The new found world court designed to enforce UN policy has started with Global warming.
"Are you so convince
November 28, 2006 - 23:31 ET by PSOS"Are you so convinced that we are so limited in our capacities to find scientific solutions to major problems that we should just give up, drain the earth of oil and then leave it to some future generation?"
Notice how he forms his response in the form of another question. Ask any liberal where we're going to get all this cheap, abundant, pollution free energy from and they will practically accuse you of heresy. And yet we’re the religious fanatics. They oppose drilling for oil in North America; they oppose nuclear power; they don't even like clean coal technology. So
where's the energy going to come from? Are we all going to attach windmills to our asses?
If anyone is to be accused of making "theological arguments", it's these lunatics who think that if we just stop using fossil fuels, all of our problems will be solved and we can finally live in Rousseau's wonderful state of nature like noble savages, free from the corrupting influence of "Big Oil." Of course, these people wouldn't last 10 seconds without electricity and power, which is really why they want to get rid of them so much; because they hate themselves and want to be destroyed.
I don't think anyone on the right is particularly happy that we're completely dependent on our sworn enemies for energy, and I don't think anyone is suggesting that we shouldn't aggressively research and pursue newer, more efficient technologies. But none of those technologies are feasible in the here and now, so in the interim at least we're going to remain dependent on fossil fuels, no matter whether liberal legislation aimed at saving the planet passes or not.
-Patrick the Neanderthal
Me no dummy. Me gots lots of smarts.
Ugh. Mea uh nog lig um globah
November 29, 2006 - 08:41 ET by Hero SquadUgh. Mea uh nog lig um globah wam wam bad. (Grunt) Me pull wife hair. Carry club. Ugh.
Another skeptic of Global Warming.
- SpongeBob the Neanderthal
*****
G.O.B.: I heard the jury's still out on science.
grunt, snort, scratch, scratc
November 29, 2006 - 11:51 ET by dscottgrunt, snort, scratch, scratch, scratch...
My knuckles are sore from dragging on the ground.
“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” – Marcus Aurelius
This just in - - - Cold set
November 28, 2006 - 23:44 ET by jdhawkThis just in - - -
Cold set to snap city record
Environment Canada says such low temperatures unusual for this time of year
By TARINA WHITE, CALGARY SUN
The arctic deep freeze trapping Calgary is on track to break a 110-year-old weather record today, but the bitter cold is expected to ease in the coming days.
With a forecast low of -31C today, Calgary could break the -27C record set on this day in 1896.
But factoring in the wind chill, it will feel even colder to people who have to brave the elements, said Environment Canada meteorologist Ross Macdonald.
"I wouldn't break out the shorts and go sunbathing right now," he joked.
"Bundle up."
The recent frigid weather is a far cry from the city's average late-November temperatures.
Macdonald said the normal daytime high at this time of year is 0C, with a low of -11C.
"The last time it was really this cold in November was about 10 years ago," he said.
"We've hit rock bottom."
It's even been too frosty to ski, with Canada Olympic Park shutting the hill yesterday in the name of safety.
Spokesman Chris Dornan said, to his knowledge, it's the first year the weather has forced a November closure.
"It's normally in January or February," he said.
Meanwhile, blowing snow likely contributed to a crash near Sylvan Lake yesterday that claimed the life of a 42-year-old motorist.
And the icy snap has the Calgary Humane Society scrambling to respond to an avalanche of calls from residents concerned about distressed animals, said spokeswoman Cheryl Wallach.
"The Calgary Humane Society is calling on all Calgary pet owners to use common sense and not leave animals outside without adequate shelter," she said.
The frigid weather is expected to improve by Thursday, with a predicted high of -7C.
JDhawk. . Dint` ya hear? The
November 29, 2006 - 11:12 ET by slaphappyJDhawk. . Dint` ya hear? The global alarmists´ have that covered. Global warming causes regional cooling.
Uh, huh, yep - good luck with that one clift/cleft...NEXXXXXXT!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Global warming is a new ver
November 29, 2006 - 07:05 ET by Red JeepGlobal warming is a new version of the old protection racket scheme without the muscle: “Your store could burn down if you don’t pay for some protection, know what I mean?”
If you pay for the global warmer’s insurance your store won’t burn down, paid off didn’t it? But if you didn’t pay for global warming insurance there is no way the global warmists can get the sun to burn down your store.
Maybe the best response to these people is to laugh at them.
PS: I hope Eleanor Clift
November 29, 2006 - 07:45 ET by Red JeepPS: I hope Eleanor Clift is being paid for her efforts. She should get her share of the global warming scare fund. Why shill for free?
McLaughlin has lost most if not all credibility....
November 29, 2006 - 07:23 ET by Guy Arthur ThomasThe McLaughlin Group started out interesting and McLaughlin as a hopeful referee but the past few years have seen McLaughlin taking ridiculous positions on too many occassions and keeping on his panel of shouters bizzare extremists like Clift.
Having Clift on and keeping her on is like having Rosie O'D or Randall Terry (the self-righteous crusader famous for his extreme behavior and carelessly leading people to be arrested and go to jail to serve his protest cause), an extremist commentator with nothing but Jr. High shrill.
McLaughlin did begin with some interest and generated a justifiable amount of respect but his time has come and gone and instead of being faithful to his initial mission he has chosen to stick by extremist personalities. But hey, he is on TV, he is wealthy so that makes everything good and right....right?
Hey McLaughlin...bye bye.
I am a member of LSCA (Lazy Spell Checkers Anonymous).
Whoa! Clift and Mclaughlin sa
November 29, 2006 - 09:03 ET by winston smithWhoa! Clift and Mclaughlin say global warming exists so it must be true! And, according to McLaughlin, people like James Hansen and Petr Chylek are 'neanderthals'. Does anyone take McLaughlin and co. seriously anymore? They can propagandize for the global warming industry all they like, but the list of dissenting scientists grows steadily every year.
Elanore Clift, John McLaghl
November 29, 2006 - 17:11 ET by danboElanore Clift, John McLaghlin, The Charles Dawson of Climate and science. I could add a few more names to the Charles Dawson list.
"Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of truth and knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods." Albert Einstein
I was blogging about global w
November 29, 2006 - 20:41 ET by JohnboI was blogging about global warming yesterday on another thread. I came across this article on a website in New Zealand today and thought some of you might find it interesting. It’s about core samples just recovered from Antarctica that scientists think indicates a dire future possibility. Here’s the first few paragraphs. Check this out:
The Ross Ice Shelf, a raft of ice the size of France, could collapse quickly, triggering a dramatic rise in sea levels, scientists warn.
A New Zealand-led drilling team in Antarctica has recovered three million years of climate history, but the news is not good for the future.
Initial analysis of sea-floor cores near Scott Base suggest the Ross Ice Shelf had collapsed in the past and had probably done so suddenly.
The team's co-chief scientist, Tim Naish, said the sediment record was important because it provided crucial evidence about how the Ross Ice Shelf would react to climate change, with potential to dramatically increase sea levels.
"If the past is any indication of the future, then the ice shelf will collapse," he said.
"If the ice shelf goes, then what about the West Antarctic Ice Sheet? What we've learnt from the Antarctic Peninsula is when once buttressing ice sheets go, the glaciers feeding them move faster and that's the thing that isn't so cheery."
Antarctica stores 90 per cent of the world's water, with the the West Antarctic Ice Sheet holding an estimated 30 million cubic kilometres.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3881816a7693,00.html
No worries, I have floaties.
November 29, 2006 - 20:44 ET by Clear thinkerNo worries, I have floaties.
Me too Ct! Using them for tu
November 29, 2006 - 20:48 ET by bigtimerMe too Ct! Using them for tubing for now, but heck they are versatile!
Drill Often!...Drill Everywhere!
I look at it this way... if G
November 29, 2006 - 20:52 ET by Clear thinkerI look at it this way... if God decides it's time for us to drown, so be it.
Ct...well one thing is for su
November 29, 2006 - 21:16 ET by bigtimerCt...well one thing is for sure, we won't have to worry about keeping the beer on ice if we are going to be floating around for awhile...hehehee
Let's see. A raft of ice &q
November 29, 2006 - 21:09 ET by danboLet's see. A raft of ice "floating" suddenly collapses triggering a dramitic rise in sea levels.
This is a neat trick. I guess this is Anthropogenic Global Warming physics. Akin to nation of islam math.
Being ice floats because it expands as it freezes. Thereby displacing the amount of water that, said ice would occupy if it returned to it's liquid state.
Therefore to cause sea level to rise we have to have new laws of physics. And displacement. Nice trick.
Can I ask, being this has happened before. And suddenly. What SUV caused that before.
And you wonder why we don't take these things seriously. The wonders of Anthropogenic Global Warming physics.
"Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of truth and knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods." Albert Einstein
DANBO...Good point. For all y
November 29, 2006 - 21:13 ET by Clear thinkerDANBO...
Good point. For all you liberals out there.... take a glass, fill with ice cubes, fill with water, then let all ice cubes melt. Now tell me what the outcome will be.
The ice has to float. Which i
November 29, 2006 - 21:31 ET by danboThe ice has to float.
Which is what an ice shelf is.
Of course being johnbo is using Harry Houdini physics, I really want to watch this slight of hand trick. I don't care how large the ice cube is. The size of a cube, France. Russia? Heck lets make it the size of asia.
Of course, if the laws of displacement are changed.
"Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of truth and knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods." Albert Einstein
If you are right, sea levels
November 30, 2006 - 13:04 ET byIf you are right, sea levels could never rise. We know they have been higher in the past (when temps were only 1oC higher, BTW). Therefore we know that you are wrong.
Ice can be attached to land. Apparently this comes as a surprise to some folks.
Sea level has be rising sin
November 30, 2006 - 14:24 ET by danboSea level has be rising since the end of the plistocene. At what 1-2 mm a year. At this rate I'll have to seriously consider moving farther inland in about 2000-6000 years.
Unless you defy the laws of physics or change the definition of an ice shelf. This will cause no sudden change in sea level.
Assuming it does break away. And melts.
I'm going with Archemides.
"Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of truth and knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods." Albert Einstein
Can we agree that the ice on
November 30, 2006 - 22:13 ET byCan we agree that the ice on land is not floating? That's the issue.
Though the ice shelves are important for many reasons.
1. They block glaciers (which are on land and therefore not floating) to slide into the ocean, where they melt faster.
2. When they break off nad move away, there is less thermal inertia to overcome, so the glacier melts even faster.
3. Their removal reduces arctic albedo, increaing again the rapidity of warming.
I imagine with a warming planet the ice will melt faster and increase sea level rise. It has increased the last thirty years or so.
We're doomed! Doomed I tell ya!
November 30, 2006 - 22:19 ET by Free StinkerSo, 30 years = 30mm (3 cm) ?
We're all screwed!
/Sarcasm Off
There is one thing I can prom
December 1, 2006 - 00:17 ET by danboThere is one thing I can promise you. If you have a boat tied to the dock. And you untie it. If your boat sinks. The reason it sank was not because you untied it.
But I must say. I am amazed at your mastery of physics.
"Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of truth and knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods." Albert Einstein
So the glacier melts even fas
December 1, 2006 - 00:30 ET by danboSo the glacier melts even faster?????
Hate to point out reality. That little 11,000 sq km berg that calved off the Ross Ice Shelf in 2000 is still there.
Lots of melting there. At this rate in just another 3-4 million years the antarctic will be totally thawed. That danged CO2 molecule.
"Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of truth and knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods." Albert Einstein
duhhhhhhh
November 29, 2006 - 23:38 ET by misterbillit all depends how much you drink---duhhhh
the glass better overflow or it will shoot a big hole in the GW fright.
Well the amount I drink will
November 30, 2006 - 10:59 ET by danboWell the amount I drink will be influenced by the amount of scotch added to the experimental ocean.
"Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of truth and knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods." Albert Einstein
danbo thanks for that great p
November 29, 2006 - 21:14 ET by bigtimerdanbo thanks for that great post, I was going to say if this happened earlier how was this man-made by us evil polluters...but thought what the heck, it would not go anywhere with Johnbo....as you most likely won't either...which I know you know already.
What we've learnt from the An
November 29, 2006 - 21:30 ET by JohnboWhat we've learnt from the Antarctic Peninsula is when once buttressing ice sheets go, the glaciers feeding them move faster and that's the thing that isn't so cheery."
This is the part, Danbo, that you seem to have completely missed. Not only do we have the ice shelf, which MAY or MAY NOT be entirely floated at this point – probably NOT – but we have the glaciers that will be allowed to now slide into the ocean.
Heck of a job, Danbo. You don’t by any chance work for the Bush Administration, do you? If you don’t, you SHOULD. They love people like you.
Johnbo...I can fix this for y
November 29, 2006 - 21:34 ET by Clear thinkerJohnbo...
I can fix this for you in a second.
Here's my advice: don't bother building that home on the beach.
See, that was easy. Next problem...
Some of us aren't employed by
November 29, 2006 - 21:49 ET by UnsaneSome of us aren't employed by political hackery, or want to be; some of us are just out to critically think.
Your thoughts on nuclear power? (Which powers 70% of France...)
"Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy." -Sir Winston Churchill, British statesman (1874-1965)
Critical thinking? WHAT cri
November 29, 2006 - 22:17 ET by JohnboCritical thinking? WHAT critical thinking? You mean like Danbo assuming that a group of scientists hasn't considered the simplest, most BASIC concept about water and ice BEFORE making a statement like they did about sea levels? Or Danbo missing the important part of their assessment that mentioned GLACIERS SLIDING INTO THE OCEAN? Are you talking about THAT "critical thinking"?
Or, is it the "critical thinking" that misunderstands or disregards the hockey stick graph and the consensus of science panel after science panel? That graph, BTW, takes into consideration ALL the variations in the past 2000 years including the Greenland example you like to talk about. WHAT critical thinking are you talking about?
All I see here are true believers willing to blindly follow the science whores paid by industry to provide disinformation. You remember the scientists that told us that cigarettes aren't harmful, don't you, and the cigarette company CEO's raising their hands to swear to tell the truth as they prepared to lie some more to the American public? I can see you now kicked back in front of the TV with a cigarette in hand saying, "Hey, that makes sense!".
As for nuclear power, once again, you have YET to even broach the subject of waste. Please solve THAT problem and you'll be instantly famous and no longer an anonymous blogger who spends his entire existence on NewsBusters. Hey, maybe The Economist has an article on it.
Johnbo. May I ask. Have you d
November 29, 2006 - 22:42 ET by danboJohnbo. May I ask. Have you done research? I have. You have to do it to get through graduate school. And I've seen some bad and stupid research.
I'm sure you'd call McIntyres research bad. Yet he shows a lot more discipline than Mann.
You have a model. I have a world of evidence.
And a lot of that evidence tells me the AGWers don't know what they'rte talking about.
Of course, if you can't show reason and good research or observations. What's left.
"Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of truth and knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods." Albert Einstein
Let me guess. You did resea
November 29, 2006 - 23:22 ET by JohnboLet me guess. You did research for the Bush Administration, right?
No. Not that good.Just good e
November 30, 2006 - 00:03 ET by danboNo. Not that good.
Just good enough to see the problems in your scientific hyperbole.
I take it, that means you've never done research?
"Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of truth and knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods." Albert Einstein
MY hyperbole? Wow, you're a
November 30, 2006 - 00:58 ET by JohnboMY hyperbole?
Wow, you're a real science wonder. A real researcher!
A researcher that missed not one but TWO basic and important facts - facts that were absolutely fundamental to understanding what the scientists were saying - in the space of just a few paragraphs and you actually have the nerve to talk like you understand ANYTHING.
You're as dumb as a doorknob.
Johnbo
November 30, 2006 - 02:53 ET by SportPoliticsJohnbo, you're as dumb as a doorknob, not the other fella.
[ As these charts and the data table show, the amount of water locked up in ice and snow is only about 1.7 percent of all water on Earth..]
Ice caps, Glaciers, & Permanent snow 24,064,000 cubic kilometers Percent of total water 1.7%
Total global water 1,386,000,000 cubic kilometers
Now, you have the research in front of you, mr science wonder.
That's the USGS qualified data there bonehead.
So what was that mr scientist about 90% of the world's water in Antarctica ?
Oh, yeah, NEVERMIND.
Source: Gleick, P. H., 1996: Water resources. In Encyclopedia of Climate and Weather, ed. by S. H. Schneider, Oxford University Press, New York, vol. 2, pp.817-823.
Hey, Sporty, you barge into a
November 30, 2006 - 03:12 ET by JohnboHey, Sporty, you barge into a conversation without apparently bothering to read what was in the article or what Danbo had to say about it. Kind of like a comedienne walking on stage and taking an unintentional pratfall. Real impressive, sport.
I guess you saw where are intrepid "researcher" bungled not one but two basic facts in the space of a few paragraphs, right? And, wait, here you are to rescue him with new information totally unrelated to the subject we were discussing. So, first, take a look at what was written before you open your pie hole.
You add some new information which may or may not be accurate. So, I'll accept that it COULD be accurate information and I'll take a look. Could be YOU, the messenger, got it wrong too, right? (Let's see. Trust SportPolitics or trust a group of New Zealand scientists who are specialists in weather studies? Hmmm, tough call, huh?)
WHATEVER the accuracy of the information your post does NOTHING to affect my judgment about Danbo's inability to even carry on a coherent conversation. I bet you actually believe this clown knows up from down!!
Johnbo, my belief is
November 30, 2006 - 03:58 ET by SportPoliticsJohnbo, my belief is you're a clown that copied and pasted one helluva big stupidity that you bought lock stock and barrel because any LIES that make GW seem like a gigantic impending crisis make your liberal emotons reel with delight, and your ignorant stances seem plausible.
Let's face it Johnbo, lies carry 90% of the water on GW, and you dummies cannot even SEE them when you copy and paste them, or read them.
You are little "true believers", if it sounds good for global warming, by golly, you'll spew it, wrong as it is, doesn't matter.
So, your posted data was "the lie", and you're so far from reality you cannot think for yourself, so danbo had to think for like I did.
Of course you admitted "floating but probably not most of it"...which amounts to agreeing but being disagreeable with danbo's point, that left you looking like a total moron, because you hadn't even thought that far.
BTW, I had read the whole article, and the scientists were mischaracterized by you, since in the article they didn't explain that this was a dangerous thing for the GW future. I left you a note of their quote about the 2-4 degree PAST WARMER period...
In fact they said they needed to look at the core data to try to determine what the glacier there was doing when it was 2-4 degrees warmer than it is now. IN OTHER WORDS, THEY'RE NOT SURE what their ice core samples show yet !
That is according to the article ITSELF.
You just "made up out of thin air" your ALARMIST characterization of the scientists...."that scientists think indicates a dire future possibility.."
So, you need more slapping down Johnbo, since danbo correctly characterized your "hyperbole".
I posted below the correction
November 30, 2006 - 04:20 ET by JohnboI posted below the correction about the 90%. I didn't notice that the word FRESH was left out. It should read 90% of the stored fresh water. And note, that's STORED fresh water. You were comparing it to the water in the ocean which OBVIOUSLY isn't stored water.
Anyway, I still don't see ANY recognition on your part of how badly danbo mangled the few facts that were presented in that article. You seem to be into "critical thinking" only when it serves to attack me. Your point on the 90% was well taken and I addressed that. But nowhere do you address my point that danbo missed such basic information that an ice shelf ISN'T free floating, the removal of the shelf allows the glaciers to flow into the ocean, and that ice core studies indicated the shelf had broken off before. These are all points that danbo missed and you failed to notice. You might want to look before you leap next time.
Are YOU ready to admit you completly missed the point of the discussion I was having with danbo?
No I'm not Johnbo and no I didn't
November 30, 2006 - 04:53 ET by SportPoliticsNo I'm not Johnbo and no I didn't.
BTW Johnbo - "stored" fresh water, more commonly referred to as ICE or SNOW, cannot be used for drinky or weewee flushing, so "it's a precious natural resource" gets a BIT DAMNED OLD FAST.
Some guy tried to float a big chunk down for freshwater useage a while back and it didn't work out. Too bad you whiney enviros don't WORK ON THAT instead of crybabying so much. I know, you cried aloud his big iceberg was cooling the ocean as he floated it down past the normal latitude...whined..whined whined...oh it was a horror..then it melted...to nothing... too soon.(This is the point where you shriek that's proof of manmade GW.)
Now, your complaints about danbo: "an ice shelf isn't free floating"
Well, it appears to me the vast majority of it is free floating. When you have miles and miles of 500 or more feet thick ice extending outward from land over water, the tension of the connection of the ice to the ice on land won't keep it elevated for but a few hundred feet, if that. It WEIGHS a lot, and will just crack downward and refreeze and fill in at the break point where it grows out over the ledge of the land ( even considering the underwater *underice* in this case sloping grade toward the ocean ).
So, just by COMMON SENSE, it is floating, the vast majority is, unless there is a very, very gradually sloping continental shelf that never gets to a very deep ocean floor at all.
Furthermore, if a big floating chunk cracks off all the way up to the land area, the glacier on the land is only going to start growing again to get to the water, you won't have a gigantic amount of glacier "thinning out and sliding into the ocean".
The glacier even if a couple thousand feet thick will slope thinner to the edge of the land/ocean shoreline for a couple of miles at most( 5 miles would be ~25,000 feet, and a 1,000 foot thick land glacier would have just a tiny near level grade over just 5 miles distance, even if it's only 1" thick at the shorline. Walking on it you wouldn't even notice walking downhill....( that's giving you best case scenario - as I believe the melted part would be a much steeper rise to full thickness glacier inland - preserving much more ice- as pictures accordingly PROVE- *due to floater cracking off*)
and the thousands of miles behind it to the center of the landmass will be 99%+ of the glacier.
So, once again, the problem is massively overstated.
_________________________________________
So, in closing, I did notice danbo's points, and I certainly agree with HIS, and NOT YOURS, for the reasons I stated above.
Just a point. An ice shelf is
November 30, 2006 - 09:03 ET by danboJust a point. An ice shelf is floating. The differentiation between the the ice sheet and shelf is the "grounding line". I checked the definition before I initially responded. Johnbo's diatribe just didn't make sense.
But, as the laws of physics (including displacement and vectors) seem to be suspended in johnbo's universe; why should we expect definitions to, well, cause words to mean what they mean. Rather than what we want them to mean.
The world is ending.
Now I'm distraught, the world is ending. I think I'll go drive around in my pickup for a couple of hours then start up the BBQ.
"Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of truth and knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods." Albert Einstein
Go to bed and the science won
November 30, 2006 - 08:17 ET by danboGo to bed and the science wonders continue.
The key word here in the definition is floating. The laws of physics and displacement still apply.
Sorry if your lack of understanding of the laws of physics gets in the way. Your wonderful hyperbole is what it is hyperbole.
If you insist on worrying about the the troubles that we will face. One day a huge meteor or comet will crash into earth causing much death and destruction. One day Krakatoa will again errupt with devestating results. And big time effects on the environment. It's happened before. And it'll happen again.
And like your problem with displacement. It has nothing to do with CO2.
"Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of truth and knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods." Albert Einstein
Wake up and the make-believe
November 30, 2006 - 11:12 ET by JohnboWake up and the make-believe researcher is still here walking around in the dark trying to find the light switch.
I was wrong about you. You actually got three things wrong in the space of a few paragraphs, not two. You missed the major point of the article which was that the ice shelf has broken off before, you missed the significance of how the loss of the ice shelf would affect the glaciers, and you assumed that and ice shelf floating FREE of the land mass has the same displacement as one attached to the land mass.
And you weren't content to just mangle the facts as presented. You then had to embarrass yourself by trying your hand at analysis. Your laughable conclusion; if the ice shelf broke off before in some long-distant past when there were no SUVs to cause global warming then global warming can happen WITHOUT SUVs and consequently global warming theory that address itself to the current situation is invalid. If YOU say so, sparky. After all, you are a paid professional. Or, at least you play one on the internet.
So, here's a suggestion. Give up your job as a "researcher" for the Bush Administration and go to work for this New Zealand crew. They OBVIOUSLY can't figure out this displacement problem after spending large sums of money to mount an expedition and recover 3 million years worth of ice core samples. They'll probably pay you a fortune to save their project. And, hey, who knows how long the Bush Administration is going to continue employing incompetents.
What can I say. You or Archim
November 30, 2006 - 11:40 ET by danboWhat can I say. You or Archimedes?
I'm going with Archimedes.
"Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of truth and knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods." Albert Einstein
Let's see, believe a slack-ja
November 30, 2006 - 14:00 ET by JohnboLet's see, believe a slack-jawed goombah that not only mangles almost EVERY fact in a few short paragraphs – and doesn’t even realize it when it’s pointed out - then makes conclusions that would make a 7th grade science student blush with embarrassment and THEN claims (this is the part I LOVE) to be a "researcher". . . . OR, believe a group of scientists who have mounted an expedition that has recovered an ice core sample with 3 million years of evidence and who have studied the problem of how an ice shelf affects water levels when it breaks off. Tough call.
I'M not a scientist OR a "researcher" OR pretend to play either on the web. But I can walk across a room and arrive on the other side with a coherent thought AND I can speak in complete sentences and my knuckles don't drag on the ground. I can even figure out that rigid ice sheets attached to a land mass don't "hinge" nor do they displace as much water as when they break free of the land mass - even if they are "floating". Picture one of those shots of Glacier Bay with giant walls of the glacier breaking off. Part of the glacier is submerged in the bay. It's not touching the bottom so it's "floating". Part of the glacier looms above the bay. After the break, more displacement, less displacement, or the same? Seems pretty obvious, bozo.
This debate boors me. I got to go. Talk among yourselves. Discuss; is the best label for you flat-earth society hacks "Neanderthals", Swartzernegger's favorite, "Cave men", or my favorite, “Troglodytes”?
Thank you. I take it as a com
November 30, 2006 - 15:08 ET by danboI can't speak for the others. But:
Thank you. I take it as a compliment.
Say hi to your Eoanthropus dawsoni friends at the Charles Dawson convention.
(Look them up.)
"Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of truth and knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods." Albert Einstein
I just read this quote and th
November 30, 2006 - 15:41 ET by JohnboI just read this quote and thought of you and the other members of the Flat Earth Society that hang out here. Oh, and good luck with your "research".
"No problem can be solved from the same level of consciousness that created it" Albert Einstein
You might like my other favor
November 30, 2006 - 16:30 ET by danboYou might like my other favorite Einstein saying.
"Two things are infinite. The universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe."
"Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of truth and knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods." Albert Einstein
Touché.! OK, I didn’t pla
November 30, 2006 - 17:12 ET by JohnboTouché.!
OK, I didn’t plan on doing more reading on this on a day when I have SO much to do that’s SO much more important that this gabfest but I read a few more articles about the ice sheets/shelfs and . . . . (drum roll) . . . YOU’RE RIGHT about the fact that the sheets/shelfs float and, therefore, won’t add to displacement when they break off. So, I learned something. I assumed the concern of the scientists about sea levels rising would imply that that mass of ice would somehow sink upon breaking free and therefore create more displacement. Not so.
The concern over the rise of sea levels is due to the release of the glaciers that they dam up therefore allowing them to slide into the ocean. That’s one of the points that I kept trying to point out to you and that you somehow insisted on missing.
And, I see from the re-read that although some reports about the 90% stored-water claim say FRESH water others don’t. AND, it really doesn’t need to be explicit that it’s fresh water to make the statement accurate. We’re talking about STORED water (read ice). So, I was wrong (it was late at night) to say I made a mistake on that score or feel that the word “fresh” would change the statement.
So, score one mistake for me (floating/displacement) and two for you (the two facts you overlooked; the glaciers sliding into the sea and the fact that the Ross ice shelf had broken off before).
Here’s the two sources I used:
http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/oct2006/2006-10-16-03.asp
http://unisci.com/stories/20021/0319021.htm
Peace. I’m out of here.
Wow! You finally get at lea
November 30, 2006 - 17:25 ET by NL207Wow! You finally get at least part of it!
I am actually impressed.
Maybe we can actually discuss global warming with you. Sooner or later you will realize that some of us do not believe that human activity has no effect on the climate. A better way to say it is we think man is having inputs to the system, but they do not dominate the natural inputs. Nor is some warming necessarily a bad thing when set against the planetary cooling that has been in force since the middle of the eocene.
Now Impress me some more. Could you pancake a Hun?
NL and John......ROFLMAO!NL,
November 30, 2006 - 17:39 ET by bigtimerNL and John......
ROFLMAO!
NL, btw....You forgot to ask for the strawberries and whipped cream with maple syrup.
I read the 1st of these and
November 30, 2006 - 19:43 ET by danboI read the 1st of these and I can go down line by line if you wish. However, I'd rather see what Gareth Marshall who supposedly said these things actually said. But so far all I'm finding is news reports. Do you have the actual interview or his actual report? The report would be better so i can read what he says rather than what someone says he said.
"Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of truth and knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods." Albert Einstein
P.S. If you read these arti
November 30, 2006 - 17:17 ET by JohnboP.S. If you read these articles, you're not going to like what they say about WHY the ice shelves (PLURAL) have broken off. Global warming effects aren't distributed evenly on the planet and the polar regions have experienced the most dramatic changes.
Get the science channel. It s
November 30, 2006 - 17:49 ET by MightyMouthGet the science channel. It seems the moon is moving away from the earth (slowly). As it does the earth will "wabble" more and more over time causing climate shifts. Now if that damn George Bush had not scared the moon away we would have been ok. Damn that man!
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
Naw... Its that darn Helen
November 30, 2006 - 17:52 ET by NL207Naw... Its that darn Helen Thomas. She's so ugly she repels the moon.
No problem. I'll argue them i
November 30, 2006 - 19:15 ET by danboNo problem. I'll argue them if I see a problem.
Then I would also like you to read these.
http://www.hoover.org/publications/books/3003781.html
specifically chapters 1
http://media.hoover.org/documents/0817939326_27.pdf
and chapter 10
http://media.hoover.org/documents/0817939326_27.pdf
and if you want to look at warming. Those don't directly deal with climate change. Rather why I deal with this issue.
http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/MM03.pdf
The climate one..
"Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of truth and knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods." Albert Einstein
Let's see. Who do I believe.
November 30, 2006 - 11:08 ET by danboLet's see. Who do I believe. Johnbo or Archimedes? Johnbo or Archimedes?
Eureka!
http://www.juliantrubin.com/bigten/archimedesprinciple.html
"Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of truth and knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods." Albert Einstein
danbo archie
November 30, 2006 - 15:16 ET by misterbillI would pick Archie too. He did it--he didn't just talk about it!
JB reads an article then posts an argument!!
2000 years of speculation
November 30, 2006 - 08:24 ET by dagdaAny graph that takes in 2000 years of data on climate is suspect. At best we only have accurate material for the last 150 years. 2000 years is speculative and clearly does not deal with either the Little Ice Age of the Medieval Warming Period. Weather is local, climate is global. Records used are weather not climate. But the conclusions are climate, not weather.
Our real problem, then, is not our strength today; it is rather the vital necessity of action today to ensure our strength tomorrow. Dwight Eisenhower
Johnbo, Exit Glacier has been
November 30, 2006 - 08:25 ET by UnsaneJohnbo, Exit Glacier has been melting...since 1780. Can I thus blame the melting of glaciers on the founding of the United States via the American Revolution? Ditto with Mendenhall Glacier...
How about THIS critical thinking? With that precious hockey stick you cling to like a security blanket or teddy bear, I should be able to plant an orange grove in my backyard. But somehow it just won't happen. Why is that?
"True believers willing to blindly floow the science whores paid by industry to provide disinformation". Fascinating. If ANY scientist DARES question global warming, their intentions and their funding IMMEDIATELY comes into question. Yet, when scientists talk about how global warming is an immutable fact, according to Johnbo, these are THE most 100% totally un-corruputable scientists of all time, and the MUST be agreed with. Never mind the fact that those exact same scientists are as guilty, if not more so, of feeding at the funding trough, especially of government funding, as those who say it is not happening. Ever notice that the funding and motives of pro-global warming scientists are NEVER EVER brought into question? Now THERE'S some critical thinking that you refuse to engage in.
I highly suspect that the real reasons you love global warming theory so much are:
- it will make it easier for you and government to punish and steal from producers.
- you, like guiltwobbler, feel overwheming, intense guilt at living in the largest and most advanced economy on earth. NOT A PEEP from you or any other GW alarmist, I have noticed, about China slated to become the #1 producer of greenhouse gases in 2015.
I have addressed the subject of nuclear waste on another thread. Yes, The Economist was partially a source, as well as reading of other articles over the years from so many different sources I cannot name or even remember them all. You should love The Economist: they are CONVINCED that global warming - oh, I mean "climate change" - is in fact happening. I read them because the U.S. media REFUSES to cover topics related to The Outside World.
Let me guess: you like the KCNA as a 100% objective news source?
"Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy." -Sir Winston Churchill, British statesman (1874-1965)
Unsane. You have to be kiddi
November 30, 2006 - 09:26 ET by danboUnsane. You have to be kidding. He believes in the hocky stick? That hunk of doo-doo has been shot so full of holes. It looks impressive, untill you look into it. The trunkations, the missing data, the fact that it contradicts lots of data.
That's like pretending that the Vikings didn't have farms, or survived by raising farm animals in Greenland.
Well they have their model. Why let facts get in the way.
"Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of truth and knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods." Albert Einstein
The "hockey stick"
November 30, 2006 - 10:50 ET by UnsaneThe "hockey stick" is Johnbo (or Guiltbo's) best friend. On another thread he whined about how we are warming outside normal patterns, or something along those lines. This, even after I highlighted the Scandinavian/Viking experience.
It is NOT ABOUT SCIENCE to Guiltbo or guiltwobbler. It is ALL about the guilt, and (most offensively) the surrendering of my freedoms, and yours.
"Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy." -Sir Winston Churchill, British statesman (1874-1965)
The Hockey Stick
November 30, 2006 - 11:07 ET by SportPoliticsI love how the hockey stick chart has 6 degrees of temp along the left side, and then runs 150 years or more along the bottom, and "projects" SKYWARD the last few years in the FUTURE- as a "prediction", with a HUGE upward tilt, because the lefthand side is only 6 degrees of temp change and the bottom years are X30 =150 or more.
If they made the temp on the left side start at zero degrees and mark the worldwide AVERAGE at 65 degrees, the tiny upward movement toward an average 71 degrees in their future worst case sceanrio prediction would look like a tiny blip, barely perceptibly different from the other fluctuations along the line.
Instead, they've taken the data, ignored the mini-ice age, spread out the years on the bottom - and compressed their predictive years toward the far right, and made the left degree points fit PERFECTLY in their scenario chart for the HIGHEST arching "hockey stick puck slappin end" they could geometrically accomplish. It is, beyond a shadow of a doubt, a DECEPTIVE chart from the word go.
The magic was to truncate the
November 30, 2006 - 11:17 ET by danboThe magic was to truncate the data before you get back to tree rings that show the medeival warm period. Even though that data was available. Then you truncate it again about 1980 because the tree rings don't look so sexy and you splice in sexy world temperture readings with all those urban heat island effects..
"Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of truth and knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods." Albert Einstein
Hmmm. The NAS panel supported
November 30, 2006 - 22:19 ET byHmmm. The NAS panel supported Mann's conclusions---aw hell we've been through this enough times that you know that. You think repeating it over nad over will make it true?
Yeah, you never found that citation for Vikings growing crops, did you? Oh, did you know that Greenland exports about 20,000 sheep per year?
The NAS panel does not the wo
November 30, 2006 - 23:12 ET by UnsaneThe NAS panel does not the world's scientists make, silly Borg.
And rather than make me do the heavy lifting, perhaps you should go out and study some history on your own, as I have. Typical Leftist: throw out the claim, demand everyone else do the heavy lifting, and then cry "irrelevant" when it doesn't suit you.
And as guilt-ridden as you are, I'd be willing to bet you don't even know how to ride a bicycle, nor have you ever engaged in landscaping (as I have).
"Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy." -Sir Winston Churchill, British statesman (1874-1965)
It sucks when your library is
November 30, 2006 - 23:22 ET by UnsaneIt sucks when your library is in permanent storage, does it not? Oh well, it will be back in my hands before too long. In the meantime...
Something else for your guilty mind to ponder. My interests are wide ranging in the realm of history, and after a visit to Japan earlier this year, I decided to buy a few texts on Japanese history. One that I am slowly working my way through, Marius Jansen's The Making of Modern Japan, has the following section, on the Tempo era of the late Tokugawa period.
"In 1833 a new series of natural disasters seemed to prove that these warnings (something had to give in late Tokugawa Japan) had been correct; Japan was once again in a crisis...The bakufu (ruling bureaucracy) cannot be blamed for all this, for the crop failures that began in 1833 and reached a height in 1836-1837 were caused by climate, though it is true that the bakuhan system made it difficult to move grain from one area to another. By 1836, however, years of unnaturally cold weather that destroyed the delicate balance of warmth and water needed to produce a rice crop has spread the damage from northeastern Japan, where it began, to central and western Japan as well. Famine was widespread. In Mito officials removed corpses from the roads so that the daimyo, Tokugawa Nariaki, would not have to see them on his trips to Edo. In the cities the price of rice reached levels it had never known before."
Seems that spells of cold (and warm) weather are natural occurrences, and can be adjusted to, no?
"Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy." -Sir Winston Churchill, British statesman (1874-1965)
If you read the article the
November 29, 2006 - 22:01 ET by danboIf you read the article the stress was on the size of the ice shelf. The "size of France".... You have a bunch of hyperbole. Trying to scare people. No science.
Hate to point reality. If it isn't floating it isn't a shelf. And if it isn't floating it ain't going no where. Break off or not. No sudden change. Either way.
Again a part you choose to ignore. It happened before. You warmers keep ignoring that thinks like this has happened before.
I perfer the side of reason and science. Not hype.
"Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of truth and knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods." Albert Einstein
Wow, another "critical t
November 29, 2006 - 22:36 ET by JohnboWow, another "critical thinker" on NewsBusters destroys with the wave of his magic "wand of reason" the work of a team of scientists specializing in ice core and weather analysis. You MUST work for the Bush Administration. Come on, 'fess up.
"IF it isn't floating, it isn't a shelf", you say.
Really? Isn't a shelf ATTACHED to something? If it's FLOATING, it would be an iceberg, wouldn't it? I'm not an expert on this kind of science, but I'm going to take a wild guess that the mass of ice isn't floating free. Seems an imminently reasonable assumption because, OTHERWISE, we don't have as great a problem with water levels and the scientist's worry wouldn't make any sense, would it? Do you thnk the scientists MAY have enough sense to figure this out? Do you think?!
As for the part about me ignoring that "this has happened before"? Hey, goombah, the scientists SAY it has happened before and they’re afraid it’ll happen AGAIN. That’s the main point of the story!!! Guess you didn't read that part either. You're aware that most of the land we live on was once underwater, right?
OK, I quit. No more remedial lessons for morons. Talk among yourselves. Discuss: How is it that people that flock to NewsBusters to read about the "bias" in the MSM don't have the critical thinking skills of a wombat?
Then if it happened before. T
November 29, 2006 - 22:48 ET by danboThen if it happened before. That was not caused by AGW.
Therefore your evidence that this is caused by anthropogenic global warming is gone.
I'm glad you're learning that nature is a big player. Far bigger than SUV's.
"Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of truth and knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods." Albert Einstein
Wow, what a nutjob. FACT:
November 29, 2006 - 23:21 ET by JohnboWow, what a nutjob.
FACT: The scientists point out that the ice shelf has broken off before according to their data and that, if it happens again, it will cause dramatic rise in sea levels.
FACT: It COULD happen again under the GW theory. Just take a look at what is already happening to the Artic. DUH
Why the shelf broke off before has NOTHINIG to do with the current situation. We've had great differences in climate over the millions of years of the earth including times when the earth was mostly covered by water. Most of us live on land that was once underwater.
Your sense of logic is simply missing, Danbo. It DID happen before - by sudden warming cause by any number of possibilities - and it COULD happen again according to the data that supports GW theory.
Sorry if you find the Laws of
November 29, 2006 - 23:58 ET by danboSorry if you find the Laws of physics and displacement an inconvience. You can ask the UN and IPCC to repeal them. Or at least give you a waiver. They still apply.
Yes you're scientist tell you the end is near. They told me we would be in an ice age by now. And the seas would be dead 10 years ago. And they told us man was the center of the universe. Now they're telling us man is the center of climate.
Sorry if you and your scientist find the laws of physics inconvenient.
Hyperbole.
"Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of truth and knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods." Albert Einstein
The Laws of Physics and displ
November 30, 2006 - 08:29 ET by UnsaneThe Laws of Physics and displacement are standing in the way of Guiltbo's screaming need to assuage his self-inflicted guilt by forcing the First World to dismantle, so he can FEEL better.
"Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy." -Sir Winston Churchill, British statesman (1874-1965)
It is sort of funny to be l
November 30, 2006 - 08:49 ET by Jack BauerIt is sort of funny to be lecured at about "science" by people who think liquid water has a bigger volume than frozen water; and Carbon Dioxide is "pollution."
Proud member of the all-powerful and vast
militarist/industrialist/capitalist/zionist-bagelist complex
All I can say on that observa
November 30, 2006 - 09:33 ET by danboAll I can say on that observation. Right on the mark.
"Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of truth and knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods." Albert Einstein
How guilt corrodes critical thinking skills
November 30, 2006 - 15:29 ET by UnsaneActually, we need to discuss the corrosive effects of guilt on critical thinking. You, Guiltbo, are a perfect example of this.
"Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy." -Sir Winston Churchill, British statesman (1874-1965)
Johnbo, you'd believe anything you read, wouldn't you ?
November 30, 2006 - 02:08 ET by SportPoliticsJohnbo, you'd believe anything you read, wouldn't you ?
How do you figure that Antarctica stores 90% of the worlds water ? Have you ever heard of the oceans ?
johnbo's copy and paste: [ Antarctica stores 90 per cent of the world's water...]
No offense, but how dumb are you Johnbo ?
That's why you people have ZERO credibility. A bunch of complete BUFFOONS state things and you maddeningly ignorant and thoughtless liberals buy it like it's a candy cane you just gotta have, and then you pump the foolish lie upon everyone else you can. I frankly am sick of it.
By the way - [ As these charts and the data table show, the amount of water locked up in ice and snow is only about 1.7 percent of all water on Earth ]
That includes ALL of it, not just what is iced up in Antarctica, you FLUNKIE.
Look, just common sense should have had you raising alarm bells. Am I that much superior and smarter than you ? Why did it raise a gigantic red flag with me, and yet you mindlessly tottered onward ?
I'm sorry but I OFTEN wonder how stupid liberals actually are.
Perhaps your idiot link writers meant this ?
" The vast majority, almost 90 percent, of Earth's ice mass is in Antarctica, while the Greenland ice cap contains 10 percent of the total global ice mass. "
YES IT MAKES A VERY , VERY BIG DIFFERENCE.
Johnbo
November 30, 2006 - 03:01 ET by SportPoliticsReading your own link might help you, too, if anything on it can be trusted at all:
{ "Once the date*sic* is more precise we'll be able to look at what the ice shelf was doing during periods when we know from other evidence that it was 2deg to 4deg warmer than today," Naish said. }
Actually, you're right. 90%
November 30, 2006 - 03:42 ET by JohnboActually, you're right. 90% would be impossible. I double checked another article I read on the study and the correct quote is 90% of the FRESH water. Big difference. I didn't notice that word was missing from this post.
WRONG AGAIN Johnbo
November 30, 2006 - 04:24 ET by SportPoliticsWRONG AGAIN Johnbo, it's ~90% of the FROZEN water.
As far as FRESHWATER it's <68.7% in 1996, and if accordingly as you whiners wail about the MELTING, one can assume it is a LESSER percentage than <68.7% of the freshwater TODAY.
Let's put this in perspective - you copied and pasted that it's 90% of ALL water in the WORLD.
It's actually 1.7% of ALL water in the WORLD.
Now, you've made a similar ERROR, in your attempt at admitting your fault and issuing a correction, claiming 90% of all the FRESHWATER - ALSO MASSIVELY WRONG.
KEEP COMING away from the global warming LIES.... you're getting warmer and closer to the TRUTH...
Antarctica percentage of fresh water in the world ?
First of all we can DEDUCT 10% of the 68.7% in 1996, since Antarctica is only 90% of all frozen water. So, minus 6.9%
That brings us DOWN to 61.8% of all freshwater in the world in 1996.
Now lets DEDUCT for the melting since 1996....
Got a figure for that ? What PERCENTAGE of all the ice has melted since 1996 ? Anyone ?
JOHNBO THE SMART ? HAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAA I MADE A FUNNY.
( if you still don't get it - here's a hint Johnbo - there is freshwater on the earth that is NOT frozen in glacier and ice sheets... but is in lakes and streams....)
GOD HELP ME !
Without looking at the links.
November 30, 2006 - 09:38 ET by danboWithout looking at the links. It's probably should be frozen "fresh" water. You do have that frozen sea ice up north.
"Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of truth and knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods." Albert Einstein
Don't panic them. Since the
November 30, 2006 - 10:58 ET by UnsaneDon't panic them. Since they clearly don't understand what displacement is, they will probably all think they will drown if (and that in itself is a big if) all the ice in the Arctic Ocean were to melt.
"Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy." -Sir Winston Churchill, British statesman (1874-1965)
danbo
November 30, 2006 - 11:54 ET by SportPoliticsClearly they're fudging a bit anyway since Greenland and Antarctica don't include all the other glaciers - Alaska - Siberia - mountaneous areas... and they have a 100% total there going with just the two. Glaciers in Washington state are precipitation formed.
( It's like 2 million cubic miles of perma salty ice up there, and in winter doubles to 4 million)
What a plagiarizing shill
November 30, 2006 - 06:15 ET by Jack BauerWhat a plagiarizing shill you truly are. You don't even THINK about the crap you copy.
Oh now, suddenly, when it's pointed out to you... it's "impossible".
It never flittered across what passes for your brain, before, that the figure you trumpeted sounded bogus?
I wonder what other weird stuff you mistakenly take for gospel because you sorta misglanced, misread or were just misled somewhere?
The fact is: you have an incurious mind. You never challenge the prevailing orthodoxy, you just parrot stuff by rote. Even the mistakes.
As for "floating" ice you mention in a different post... (with the vast majority of its volume below the surface, you know, the tip of the iceberg?)
So tell me genius, when a mass of "floating" ice melts. Does water level rise or lower or remain roughly the same?
Proud member of the all-powerful and vast
militarist/industrialist/capitalist/zionist-bagelist complex
Yes, I missed the fact that t
November 30, 2006 - 11:28 ET by JohnboYes, I missed the fact that the post I put up was missing the word "fresh" water - as in 90% of the world's STORED FRESH WATER. Unlike others on this blog, I will look at what others say and consider if I've missed something.
As for you, don't know what to make of someone who thinks that an ice shelf that's attached to a land mass has the same displacement as one floating free. Or thinks that a scientific expedition consisting of climate experts couldn't figure out something as simple as that. But, hey, you spend your life on NewsBusters. That says a lot.
Try this bozo. Hold an ice cube against the side of a glass so that it's half submerged. It's "attached" to the side of the glass. It is also partly submerged so there is some displacement. Release the ice. What happens?
Any questions? I didn't think so.
Try this moron. You're the
November 30, 2006 - 11:33 ET by Jack BauerTry this moron. You're the one who mentioned "floating." ice.
What a plagiarizing arrogant misinformed humorless shill you are. GFYA.
So do tell me, "floating ice." When it melts does the water level go up, down, or remain roughly the same.
Proud member of the all-powerful and vast
militarist/industrialist/capitalist/zionist-bagelist complex
I know the answer! "Who
November 30, 2006 - 11:43 ET by danboI know the answer!
"Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of truth and knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods." Albert Einstein
hey danbo -- that puts you
November 30, 2006 - 14:09 ET by Jack Bauerhey danbo -- that puts you on a par with most 10 year olds... still beats Cold Hand Johnbo though.
Proud member of the all-powerful and vast
militarist/industrialist/capitalist/zionist-bagelist complex
JB
November 30, 2006 - 12:23 ET by SportPoliticsThat must the "the cold hand of God" Johnbo has lofting 50% of the glacier above the heighth of the waterlevel. Hundreds of millions of tons of ice and packed snow defy gravity in Johnbo's world, because everyone knows ice doesn't crack.
( Funny, the GW loons whine 15-50 feet deep water melt fissures can "crack and sheer off" thousands of foot thick(deep) glaciers on the lands edge, freeing enormous square miles at once. )
But, gravity is helpless by the glaciers own "attraction to itself" - and a massive billions of tons "elevated ice bridge" stetches out from the land for miles into the sea in Johnbo's world.
LOL... sport. "the col
November 30, 2006 - 14:07 ET by Jack BauerLOL... sport.
"the cold hand of God" Johnbo
Good job he has such a high opinion of himself, makes up for the low opinion the rest of us have.
Maybe we should chip in and buy him Dale Carnegie's seminal tome; "How To Win Friends and Influence People"
He sure needs it.
Proud member of the all-powerful and vast
militarist/industrialist/capitalist/zionist-bagelist complex
Floating ice
November 30, 2006 - 11:45 ET by misterbillJB I need info. How much of the ice is on land and how much is in the ocean??
Why is the ice getting thicker on the other side of Greenland? What does that mean???
If it's hanging on the side.
November 30, 2006 - 11:49 ET by danboIf it's hanging on the side. Well it's not an ice shelf. It's either an ice sheet or in the grounding line.
Not my definition. Archimedes sill reigns.
"Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of truth and knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods." Albert Einstein
Sorry Johnbo - WRONG again.
November 30, 2006 - 12:10 ET by SportPoliticsSorry Johnbo - WRONG again.
The ice sheet in Antarctica is "hinged" at the edge of the land, and FLOATS in the water. Since the land goes from soft mud in the interior to hard ridged rocks on the periphery, there is no "tugging" half the ice mass into the water when a shear occurs.
In march 2000 a 11,000 sq kn
November 30, 2006 - 12:38 ET by danboIn march 2000 a 11,000 sq kn hunk of the Ross ice shelf broke off. (B-15) Though not as large as france, still a good size. Did we have a sudden increase in sea levels in 2000? An inch? Half an inch?
Though it's since broken up several times into smaller pieces. Most of that berg is still down there. Caught up on sea mounts. The coast etc.
Now after 6 years this iceberg can't break free of the antarctic. Any bets on what a larger piece does? Get caught up on sea mounts shallows etc?
Assuming this piece does break.Vector analysis still comes in to play for the ice sheets. It'll have to push this huge berg out of the way. Which is exactly what it's doing now without the break.
Archimedes wins again.
The end of the world has be posponed till after the taxes are collected.
"Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of truth and knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods." Albert Einstein
For Johnbo's edification
November 30, 2006 - 05:49 ET by SportPoliticsPlease Johnbo, pay attention and then do some thinking, to try to figure out whom is playing games with your fears...
WaPo:
[Antarctic Ice Sheet Is Melting RapidlyNew Study Warns Of Rising Sea Levels
The Antarctic ice sheet is losing as much as 36 cubic miles of ice a year in a trend that scientists link to global warming, according to a new paper that provides the first evidence that the sheet's total mass is shrinking significantly. ]
Ok, the sheets total mass = 5,195,700 CUBIC MILES OF ICE.
So, we have an emergency on our hands, with the "rapidly melting" Antarctic ice sheet, and it's "total mass is shrinking significantly"...
They got ya scared good didn't they Johnbo ?
Tell me my friend what percentage of all of Antarctica's ice is 36 cubic miles when the total cubic miles of ice in Antarctica is 5,195,700 ?
ROFLMAO - NOW -PLEASE GET BACK TO ME WHEN ONE OF THE GW FREAKS TELLS YOU WHAT PERCENTAGE OF THE ICE HAS MELTED IN THIS FRAGILE GLOBAL WARMING DIRE ALARMIST TIME WE LIVE IN !!!
( MY GUESS IS .0007 PERCENT )
Johnbo, there are a LOT of complete IDIOTS out there writing articles that make real scientists LOL or get angry and frown.
At that current ice rate melt per year johnbo, it would take 144,235 YEARS for all the ice in Antarctica to melt.