The Stupidity of the Cato Institute and BC Report
Alan Baker
Medeiros) wrote:
>"Mr. Michaels says the headlines regarding melting ice caps amount to
>blatant scaremongering. Because the ice is already floating in the
>ocean, he says, it would not raise sea levels even if it melted
>completely. 'You can prove that just by watching the ice melt in a
>highball,' he says. "
>
>A in grade 3 science, F in Grade 6 Geography. When those of you who
>passed that course finish laughing, read on...
Please don't tell me you believe that the level of water in glass rises
when ice that is floating in it melts.
--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling four feet, move the fireplace from that wall to that
wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you sit in the
bottom of that cupboard."
Siobhan Medeiros
what the hell- the Fraser Institute are the least bit credible, check
out these quotes from BC Report from their January 24 issue in an
article entitled "Edmonton, Global Hot Spot"
"No one denies that we have been experiencing a slight warming trend
through the 20th century, says Patrick Michaels, senior fellow in
environmental sciences at the Cato Institute in Washington, D.C."
That's right, the head guy.
"But the public should know that for political reasons governments in
Canada and the US have chosen to emphasize only one particular climate
hsitory out of several that are available. 'Naturally,' he says,
'they chose the hottest. The rest are not remarkable at all'"
If that sounds pretty dumb, read on - the best is yet to come.
"Mr. Michaels says the headlines regarding melting ice caps amount to
blatant scaremongering. Because the ice is already floating in the
ocean, he says, it would not raise sea levels even if it melted
completely. 'You can prove that just by watching the ice melt in a
highball,' he says. "
A in grade 3 science, F in Grade 6 Geography. When those of you who
passed that course finish laughing, read on...
" There are also hints that even if some artic ice is melting, it is
building rapidly elsewhere. A few years ago a team of enthusiasts
tried to recover some old fighter planes that had been forced to land
on Greenland's ice cap during the Second World War. They found the
planes under 63 feet of ice"
Ok, let's display total ignorance of the behaviour of glaciers. Move
on...
"In fact Mr. Michaels, over three-fourths of the measurable warming
that has taken place during the last century has occurred in two cold,
high pressure areas, specifically Siberia and north-western Canada,
with Edmonton at the epicentre of the phenomenon."
This is in complete contrast to everything I have ever read on the
subject. And I've been at it awhile.
The last part is really good...
"'Albertans should ask themselves if global warming has harmed their
way of life.' he says."
In other words, say goodbye to Alberta winters and hello to October in
swim trunks. And maybe if we cut down the rain forest we can all go
live at Club Med Brazil.
How stupid are these guys? Or maybe the question should be, how
stupid do they think we are?
No man is an island.
Henry Blaskowski
> "No one denies that we have been experiencing a slight warming trend
> through the 20th century, says Patrick Michaels, senior fellow in
> environmental sciences at the Cato Institute in Washington, D.C."
> That's right, the head guy.
He's not the head guy, silly. Here's a hint: when you try to
attack somebody's credibility, don't make a blatant error in
your first point.....
> "But the public should know that for political reasons governments in
> Canada and the US have chosen to emphasize only one particular climate
> hsitory out of several that are available. 'Naturally,' he says,
> 'they chose the hottest. The rest are not remarkable at all'"
> If that sounds pretty dumb, read on - the best is yet to come.
It's not dumb at all, it's the facts as reported in science journals.
> "Mr. Michaels says the headlines regarding melting ice caps amount to
> blatant scaremongering. Because the ice is already floating in the
> ocean, he says, it would not raise sea levels even if it melted
> completely. 'You can prove that just by watching the ice melt in a
> highball,' he says. "
> A in grade 3 science, F in Grade 6 Geography. When those of you who
> passed that course finish laughing, read on...
I didn't read the full report, but the point he may be making is
that the ice caps tend to melt around the edges first, which tend
to be over water -- in which case he is correct. Only small amounts
of the polar ice caps are on land. If that part melted, he would
be incorrect, but that doesn't appear to be happening yet.
> " There are also hints that even if some artic ice is melting, it is
> building rapidly elsewhere. A few years ago a team of enthusiasts
> tried to recover some old fighter planes that had been forced to land
> on Greenland's ice cap during the Second World War. They found the
> planes under 63 feet of ice"
> Ok, let's display total ignorance of the behaviour of glaciers. Move
> on...
Do you have evidence that the ice caps are thinner now than they
were 100 years ago? If so, please provide a reference, because I
read a lot of science and have yet to see such a claim.
> "In fact Mr. Michaels, over three-fourths of the measurable warming
> that has taken place during the last century has occurred in two cold,
> high pressure areas, specifically Siberia and north-western Canada,
> with Edmonton at the epicentre of the phenomenon."
> This is in complete contrast to everything I have ever read on the
> subject. And I've been at it awhile.
I've seen many versions, with his being one of them. None of the
versions are showing any significant changes in middle latitiudes
at the earth's surface.
> The last part is really good...
> "'Albertans should ask themselves if global warming has harmed their
> way of life.' he says."
> In other words, say goodbye to Alberta winters and hello to October in
> swim trunks. And maybe if we cut down the rain forest we can all go
> live at Club Med Brazil.
Do you think Albertans have had to change their lifestyle? How
have they been affected?
> How stupid are these guys? Or maybe the question should be, how
> stupid do they think we are?
I don't know... you haven't provided any science or logic to argue
against, just some vague complaints about a renowned scientist not
being smart enough for you. You'd have more credibility if you'd
discuss his errors rather than just launch a series of personal
attacks.
nkennedy
I don't think that the "grade 3 science" is in dispute(after all he
gave an A for that effort).
But, to me (one who knows little about the subject) it seems the
analogy is "crooked"
The glass anology would be valid for the ice-bergs that break off and
"float" like we get in the North Atlantic.
The actual glacier or ice cap covers both land and ocean, thus is
supported by land and does not "float". Therefore the water displacement
rules for floating bodies do not apply.
Just a point of view.
Neil K
sunnyj...@my-deja.com
As per your last line, we think you are pretty gullible. We can
speculate on your stupidity.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Kahuna Burger
: In article <39d02979...@news.direct.ca>, s...@direct.ca (Siobhan
: Medeiros) wrote:
: >A in grade 3 science, F in Grade 6 Geography. When those of you who
: >passed that course finish laughing, read on...
: Please don't tell me you believe that the level of water in glass rises
: when ice that is floating in it melts.
I believe that was the "science" part, which zie gave an A - that is,
agreed with the truth of. The F was in geography, where you learn that
most of the ice is on land, not in water.
Nothing in zir post gave the impression that zie disagreed with the
(largly irrelevant, IMHO) fact that melting ice floating in a glass
doesn't raise the water level.
(not really interested in this thread, but annoyed at misdirected
arguments)
--
The Big Kahuna Burger Alt.atheist # 1037
\./'\./'\./'\./'\./'\./'\./'\../'\./'\./'\./'\./'\./'\./'\./
John Corman
<Alan_...@bc.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>In article <39d02979...@news.direct.ca>, s...@direct.ca (Siobhan
>Medeiros) wrote:
>
>>"Mr. Michaels says the headlines regarding melting ice caps amount to
>>blatant scaremongering. Because the ice is already floating in the
>>ocean, he says, it would not raise sea levels even if it melted
>>completely. 'You can prove that just by watching the ice melt in a
>>highball,' he says. "
>>
>>A in grade 3 science, F in Grade 6 Geography. When those of you who
>>passed that course finish laughing, read on...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Please don't tell me you believe that the level of water in glass rises
>when ice that is floating in it melts.
==================================================
It's amazing how we get these concepts, isn't it. I just assumed,
with out thinking about it, that if all the ice bergs melted we'd have
a catastrophe.
On the other hand, what happens if all the land bearing ice melts?
M. Simon
Ever hear of polynyas? (I think I got the spelling right)
About 10% of the arctic is sea water at any one time.
Its just the pole's turn.
So you get an F in geography.
M. Simon Space-Time Productions http://www.spacetimepro.com
Free CNC Machine Control Software
Free Source Code
Control the World From a Parallel Port
M. Simon
wrote:
>"Please don't tell me you believe that the level of water in glass rises
>when ice that is floating in it melts." ->Alan Baker
>
> I don't think that the "grade 3 science" is in dispute(after all he
>gave an A for that effort).
> But, to me (one who knows little about the subject) it seems the
>analogy is "crooked"
> The glass anology would be valid for the ice-bergs that break off and
>"float" like we get in the North Atlantic.
> The actual glacier or ice cap covers both land and ocean,
Not at the North Pole.
David Carrell
<39d02979...@news.direct.ca>:
>For anyone who still insists that the Cato Institute, BC Report, or -
>what the hell- the Fraser Institute are the least bit credible, check
>out these quotes from BC Report from their January 24 issue in an
>article entitled "Edmonton, Global Hot Spot"
Well as we can see from your comments below (also largely rebutted
below) I trust their credibility more than yours.
>
>"No one denies that we have been experiencing a slight warming trend
>through the 20th century, says Patrick Michaels, senior fellow in
>environmental sciences at the Cato Institute in Washington, D.C."
>
>That's right, the head guy.
Actually a senior fellow is no where near "the head guy". [Stike one]
>
>"But the public should know that for political reasons governments in
>Canada and the US have chosen to emphasize only one particular climate
>hsitory out of several that are available. 'Naturally,' he says,
>'they chose the hottest. The rest are not remarkable at all'"
>
>If that sounds pretty dumb, read on - the best is yet to come.
Sounds very credible to me. If you actually review the data in total,
along with the timeline of the 'industrial revolution', and add in
geologically historical climate and temperature records you would find
he is right. The planet has warmed recently but that is no suprise
since we are 'known' to be exiting a mini-ice age. (Also don't forget
all the warnings, often from some of these same scientists, 25 years
ago that we were all going to freeze in the soon to be hear next ice
age. [Strike two]
>
>"Mr. Michaels says the headlines regarding melting ice caps amount to
>blatant scaremongering. Because the ice is already floating in the
>ocean, he says, it would not raise sea levels even if it melted
>completely. 'You can prove that just by watching the ice melt in a
>highball,' he says. "
For the northern icecap he is largely correct. There is relatively
little supporting land mass for the northern icecap. [Strike 3]
>
>A in grade 3 science, F in Grade 6 Geography. When those of you who
>passed that course finish laughing, read on...
>
>" There are also hints that even if some artic ice is melting, it is
>building rapidly elsewhere. A few years ago a team of enthusiasts
>tried to recover some old fighter planes that had been forced to land
>on Greenland's ice cap during the Second World War. They found the
>planes under 63 feet of ice"
>
>Ok, let's display total ignorance of the behaviour of glaciers. Move
>on...
Actually recent measurments by a 'pro-global warming team', that is a
group attempting to prove the theory is correct, have shown that while
the ice on one side of Greenland (the southeast, IIRC) has thinned, the
ice on the other side (again IIRC the Northwest) has thickened
appreciably. They, in the reports I read, did not address the relative
changes so we don't know if the ice in total shrank, grew, or remained
unchanged. [Stike 4]
>
>"In fact Mr. Michaels, over three-fourths of the measurable warming
>that has taken place during the last century has occurred in two cold,
>high pressure areas, specifically Siberia and north-western Canada,
>with Edmonton at the epicentre of the phenomenon."
>
>This is in complete contrast to everything I have ever read on the
>subject. And I've been at it awhile.
Seems to agree very much with what I have seen and read by scientist on
both sides of the debates. In fact even many of the highly touted
warming models show little change in most of the mid latitudes, some
areas of temperature decrease in the lower latitudes, and the largest
increases in the higher latitudes. Specifically those areas Mr.
Michaels mentions. But then again since they are matching and tweaking
the models to match the recent historical records so that is what the
models should predict. [Stike 5]
>
>The last part is really good...
>
>"'Albertans should ask themselves if global warming has harmed their
>way of life.' he says."
>
>In other words, say goodbye to Alberta winters and hello to October in
>swim trunks. And maybe if we cut down the rain forest we can all go
>live at Club Med Brazil.
Can you cite any evidence that life in Alberta has changed
significantly and if so give further proof that these changes have
resulted in any harm (to Albertans in particular). [Stike six, 2 outs,
do you really want to take some more swings?]
Now do I believe that Mr. Micheals has all the facts correct. Yes,
probably for the ones he is using. Do I believe he is 'slanting' the
data his way, probably. But then again, I see much the same from the
pro-warming scientists as well. You would be well served to try reading
between the lines and taking claims from either side of the debate with
a grain of salt. After all, both sides have lots to gain by convincing
you they are right. Challenge the statements and see if other
explanations are plausible, otherwise you start looking and acting like
a sheep (which is pretty much where I would place you right now.)
DAC
--
speaking only for me
______________________________________________________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Still Only $9.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
With Servers In California, Texas And Virginia - The Worlds Uncensored News Source
nkennedy
Carrell
What does the area of the grounding have to do with the question of
"floating"? If the ice cap is being supported by land anywhere it is not
floating and and is NOT displacing a volume of water equel to its own
volume? (strike 4)
Neil K
M. Simon
wrote:
Is the difference significant?
Strike 5.
Andrew J. Brehm
> On Tue, 26 Sep 2000 12:48:00 -0300, nkennedy <nken...@seascape.ns.ca>
> wrote:
>
> >"Please don't tell me you believe that the level of water in glass rises
> >when ice that is floating in it melts." ->Alan Baker
> >
> > I don't think that the "grade 3 science" is in dispute(after all he
> >gave an A for that effort).
> > But, to me (one who knows little about the subject) it seems the
> >analogy is "crooked"
> > The glass anology would be valid for the ice-bergs that break off and
> >"float" like we get in the North Atlantic.
> > The actual glacier or ice cap covers both land and ocean,
>
> Not at the North Pole.
Doesn't the ice of the North Pole go south to Canada and Greenland, both
of which are, sort of, land?
--
Fan of Woody Allen
PowerPC User
Supporter of Pepperoni Pizza
Robert N. Newshutz
>
> M. Simon <msi...@xta.com> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 26 Sep 2000 12:48:00 -0300, nkennedy <nken...@seascape.ns.ca>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >"Please don't tell me you believe that the level of water in glass rises
> > >when ice that is floating in it melts." ->Alan Baker
> > >
> > > I don't think that the "grade 3 science" is in dispute(after all he
> > >gave an A for that effort).
> > > But, to me (one who knows little about the subject) it seems the
> > >analogy is "crooked"
> > > The glass anology would be valid for the ice-bergs that break off and
> > >"float" like we get in the North Atlantic.
> > > The actual glacier or ice cap covers both land and ocean,
> >
> > Not at the North Pole.
>
Nope, water flows down hill, even when solid.
> both
> of which are, sort of, land?
>
--
Robert N. Newshutz
Paul Zrimsek
wrote:
>What does the area of the grounding have to do with the question of
>"floating"? If the ice cap is being supported by land anywhere it is not
>floating and and is NOT displacing a volume of water equel to its own
>volume? (strike 4)
At its minimum extent, which occurs at just about this time of year,
the Arctic ice pack touches land only at a few isolated locations. In
any case, sea ice would have to possess some astonishing structural
qualities in order for a pack 2000-3000 kilometers across and only a
few meters thick to be supported only at its periphery!
A little background on the story: The Cato article was in response to
a recent news story about leads (open water) which recently appeared
quite close to the North Pole. At least one major news organization
(the New York Times, IIRC) seized on this as evidence of global
warming, only to beat a retreat after consulting some actual
scientists and learning that that sort of thing probably has been
happening for thousands of years. As far as I know, the media scare
never claimed that the melting sea ice was a threat in itself, only
that it was evidence of warming. So the Cato article is misleading on
that count. And it neglects to mention a related story that's true--
that the Arctic ice pack is thinner than it used to be. (Of course
this is evidence only that the climate in that area *has been* getting
warmer. As the mutual-fund ads say, past performance is no guarantee
of future results.)
The bit about the planes in Greenland is just plain dumb. Not one of
Cato's better efforts.
Paul Zrimsek pzri...@earthlink.net
-----------------------------------------------------------
Alarmism is dooming our society!
David Carrell
<39D17ACA...@seascape.ns.ca>:
You actually believe that some very minimal land support at the edges
of the northern polar icecap supports the other ice in any meaningful
way? I know that igloos (sp?) are stout structures but you must be
aware of some super-magical structural aspect of ice that I have not
seen. Quite simply the minor support provided by what little land is
present does NOT affect the huge majority of the pack ice which IS
floating.
>
> Neil K
Andrew J. Brehm
> "Andrew J. Brehm" wrote:
> >
> > M. Simon <msi...@xta.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, 26 Sep 2000 12:48:00 -0300, nkennedy <nken...@seascape.ns.ca>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > >"Please don't tell me you believe that the level of water in glass rises
> > > >when ice that is floating in it melts." ->Alan Baker
> > > >
> > > > I don't think that the "grade 3 science" is in dispute(after all he
> > > >gave an A for that effort).
> > > > But, to me (one who knows little about the subject) it seems the
> > > >analogy is "crooked"
> > > > The glass anology would be valid for the ice-bergs that break off and
> > > >"float" like we get in the North Atlantic.
> > > > The actual glacier or ice cap covers both land and ocean,
> > >
> > > Not at the North Pole.
> >
> > Doesn't the ice of the North Pole go south to Canada and Greenland,
>
> Nope, water flows down hill, even when solid.
I don't find it very logical to assume that there is no ice in Canada
and Greenland because "water flows down hill".
If this was true, we would also have to assume that there is no ice on
the south pole either, because its also land, and water flows down hill.
Robert N. Newshutz
>
> Robert N. Newshutz <news...@nospam.millcomm.com> wrote:
>
> > "Andrew J. Brehm" wrote:
> > >
> > > M. Simon <msi...@xta.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >"Please don't tell me you believe that the level of water in glass rises
> > > > >when ice that is floating in it melts." ->Alan Baker
> > > > >
> > > > > I don't think that the "grade 3 science" is in dispute(after all he
> > > > >gave an A for that effort).
> > > > > But, to me (one who knows little about the subject) it seems the
> > > > >analogy is "crooked"
> > > > > The glass anology would be valid for the ice-bergs that break off and
> > > > >"float" like we get in the North Atlantic.
> > > > > The actual glacier or ice cap covers both land and ocean,
> > > >
> > > > Not at the North Pole.
> > >
> >
> > Nope, water flows down hill, even when solid.
>
> I don't find it very logical to assume that there is no ice in Canada
> and Greenland because "water flows down hill".
>
wrote.
Contradicting a false idea that ice flows uphill from the artic sea
ice onto land, is not a claim that there is no ice on land.
> If this was true, we would also have to assume that there is no ice on
> the south pole either, because its also land, and water flows down hill.
>
You postulated that the ice from the North Pole flowed up onto land.
Sorry, but gravity does exist, and ice does not flow uphill from the
sea onto land.
Ice forms on landmass from water vapor in the atmosphere (i.e. snow,
frost, ...)
--
Robert N. Newshutz
Andrew J. Brehm
> "Andrew J. Brehm" wrote:
> >
> > Robert N. Newshutz <news...@nospam.millcomm.com> wrote:
> > > > Doesn't the ice of the North Pole go south to Canada and Greenland,
> > >
> > > Nope, water flows down hill, even when solid.
> >
> > I don't find it very logical to assume that there is no ice in Canada
> > and Greenland because "water flows down hill".
> >
> I agree, but of course this strawman has nothing to do with what I
> wrote.
Except that it proves you wrong.
> Contradicting a false idea that ice flows uphill from the artic sea
> ice onto land, is not a claim that there is no ice on land.
Nice strawman, but I did not claim the water would flows anywhere.
> > If this was true, we would also have to assume that there is no ice on
> > the south pole either, because its also land, and water flows down hill.
>
> You postulated that the ice from the North Pole flowed up onto land.
No, you postulated that it doesn't.
I replied to this:
<quote>
> > The actual glacier or ice cap covers both land and ocean,
>
> Not at the North Pole.
</quote>
> Sorry, but gravity does exist, and ice does not flow uphill from the
> sea onto land.
Can we forget your "water flows" obessesion for a while and go back to
the discussion?
The point was (originally) that when ice melts, the water level will go
up. This was countered by the claim that the water level would not rise
if the ice was floating the water. Then the above quoting comes in with
the claim that "the actual glacier of ice or ice cap covers both land
and ocean", to which it was replied that this was apparently not so at
the North Pole.
Now try to see my question relative to the context it was asked in and
you might (check an atlas) realize that Northern Canada and Greenland
lie within the northern ice shield and that thus a lot of the ice in
question is indeed located on land. And this is independent of where
water flows or how often you remind me that water flows downhill.
> Ice forms on landmass from water vapor in the atmosphere (i.e. snow,
> frost, ...)
And? Doesn't change the fact that there is indeed ice located on land at
the North Pole, given that the north pole ice shield goes all the way
from the very northern pole down (or south, if this helps) to Greenland
and northern Canada.
Robert N. Newshutz
>
> Robert N. Newshutz <news...@nospam.millcomm.com> wrote:
>
> > "Andrew J. Brehm" wrote:
> > >
> > > Robert N. Newshutz <news...@nospam.millcomm.com> wrote:
> > > > > Doesn't the ice of the North Pole go south to Canada and Greenland,
> > > >
> > > > Nope, water flows down hill, even when solid.
> > >
> > > I don't find it very logical to assume that there is no ice in Canada
> > > and Greenland because "water flows down hill".
> > >
> > I agree, but of course this strawman has nothing to do with what I
> > wrote.
>
> Except that it proves you wrong.
>
> > Contradicting a false idea that ice flows uphill from the artic sea
> > ice onto land, is not a claim that there is no ice on land.
>
> Nice strawman, but I did not claim the water would flows anywhere.
>
> > > If this was true, we would also have to assume that there is no ice on
> > > the south pole either, because its also land, and water flows down hill.
> >
> > You postulated that the ice from the North Pole flowed up onto land.
>
> No, you postulated that it doesn't.
>
> I replied to this:
>
> <quote>
> >
> > Not at the North Pole.
--
Robert N. Newshutz
Robert N. Newshutz
>
> Robert N. Newshutz <news...@nospam.millcomm.com> wrote:
>
> > "Andrew J. Brehm" wrote:
> > >
> > > Robert N. Newshutz <news...@nospam.millcomm.com> wrote:
> > > > > Doesn't the ice of the North Pole go south to Canada and Greenland,
> > > >
> > > > Nope, water flows down hill, even when solid.
> > >
> > > I don't find it very logical to assume that there is no ice in Canada
> > > and Greenland because "water flows down hill".
> > >
> > I agree, but of course this strawman has nothing to do with what I
> > wrote.
>
> Except that it proves you wrong.
>
"wrong". It might indicate that I misunderstood your ambiguous use
of the word "go".
> > Contradicting a false idea that ice flows uphill from the artic sea
> > ice onto land, is not a claim that there is no ice on land.
>
> Nice strawman, but I did not claim the water would flows anywhere.
>
That something travels is the primary interpretation of applying the
word "go".
> > > If this was true, we would also have to assume that there is no ice on
> > > the south pole either, because its also land, and water flows down hill.
> >
> > You postulated that the ice from the North Pole flowed up onto land.
>
> No, you postulated that it doesn't.
>
> I replied to this:
>
> <quote>
> > > The actual glacier or ice cap covers both land and ocean,
> >
> > Not at the North Pole.
> </quote>
>
> > Sorry, but gravity does exist, and ice does not flow uphill from the
> > sea onto land.
>
> Can we forget your "water flows" obessesion for a while and go back to
> the discussion?
>
> The point was (originally) that when ice melts, the water level will go
> up. This was countered by the claim that the water level would not rise
> if the ice was floating the water. Then the above quoting comes in with
> the claim that "the actual glacier of ice or ice cap covers both land
> and ocean", to which it was replied that this was apparently not so at
> the North Pole.
>
> Now try to see my question relative to the context it was asked in and
> you might (check an atlas) realize that Northern Canada and Greenland
> lie within the northern ice shield and that thus a lot of the ice in
> question is indeed located on land. And this is independent of where
> water flows or how often you remind me that water flows downhill.
>
> > Ice forms on landmass from water vapor in the atmosphere (i.e. snow,
> > frost, ...)
>
> And? Doesn't change the fact that there is indeed ice located on land at
> the North Pole, given that the north pole ice shield goes all the way
> from the very northern pole down (or south, if this helps) to Greenland
> and northern Canada.
>
I now understand your point.
Perhaps you can understand why I misunderstood your use of the word
"go", in light of the fact that the artic ice is not a continuous
sheet, and does not "go" (in your sense of cover) from the North
Pole down over Canada and Greenland either.
The land ice on Greenland is not always connected to the ice on the
ocean.
If your point was that there is ice on land in the North, then it is
still off point, as the question at hand was does the melting of
ocean ice raise sea levels.
--
Robert N. Newshutz
Stuart Dunn
> through the 20th century, says Patrick Michaels, senior fellow in
> environmental sciences at the Cato Institute in Washington, D.C."
for, whether or not this warming presents a threat, and whether or not
the government should do something to stop it.
>
> That's right, the head guy.
>
> "But the public should know that for political reasons governments in
> Canada and the US have chosen to emphasize only one particular climate
> hsitory out of several that are available. 'Naturally,' he says,
> 'they chose the hottest. The rest are not remarkable at all'"
million years, you'll see that we've been alternating between ice ages
and warm periods at an extremely fast rate since the end of the
Pliocene. We're in a warm period right now.
Keep in mind that these "global" climate trends aren't actually global.
Some parts of the Earth cool while others warm. At least for the
Pleistocene, these "global" trends are based mostly on isotopic analysis
of the ice in Greenland.
>
> If that sounds pretty dumb, read on - the best is yet to come.
>
> "Mr. Michaels says the headlines regarding melting ice caps amount to
> blatant scaremongering. Because the ice is already floating in the
> ocean, he says, it would not raise sea levels even if it melted
> completely. 'You can prove that just by watching the ice melt in a
> highball,' he says. "
the melting of the polar ice caps isn't a big deal is because it happens
so slowly that the buildings in the coastal cities that would supposedly
be flooded will have already been destroyed or abandoned.
nkennedy
the melting of the polar ice caps isn't a big deal is because it happens
so slowly that the buildings in the coastal cities that would supposedly
Give it up stupid. The CATO bunch along with the Fraser Institute
are incompetent liars and propagandists.
This scum insult decent people by printing something so childish
and expecting to "pull it off".
"An ice cube in a glass". What an insult.
You'll do your cause better if you just drop it, but I hope you keep it
going. The more people that see the cheap lies of these right-wing
(S)tink tanks the better.
Neil K
Don Wagner
nkennedy <nken...@seascape.ns.ca> wrote in message
news:39D69B08...@seascape.ns.ca...
Not that you can find any facts to refute it, but then that's so common
'eith the left.
Did you ever watch an ice cube in a glass?
I exoect not.
Don Wagner
>
> Neil K
nkennedy
Go on, you stupid fucker! The ice cube is ON the glass, not IN the
glass. But you never pay attention.
Neil K
Don Wagner
> "Did you ever watch an ice cube in a glass?" -> Don Wagner
>
> Go on, you stupid fucker! The ice cube is ON the glass, not IN the
> glass. But you never pay attention.
Attention to what? to your lack of proof that the icecaps had ever
melted in the past and the continents flooded in spite of all the
cooling and warming cycles. But then you know better because
you are a leftwinger and were BORN being correct.
Don Wagner
M. Simon
wrote:
Doesn't the floor get wet then?
Isn't it better in the glass?
Can global cooling be prevented?
NM
---snipped---
> > "No one denies that we have been experiencing a slight warming trend
> > through the 20th century, says Patrick Michaels, senior fellow in
> > environmental sciences at the Cato Institute in Washington, D.C."
> The real issues are how much of that warming humans are responsible
> for, whether or not this warming presents a threat, and whether or not
> the government should do something to stop it.
Or can do something about it.
---snipped---
> If you look at a chart of "global" climate trends over the last few
> million years, you'll see that we've been alternating between ice ages
> and warm periods at an extremely fast rate since the end of the
> Pliocene. We're in a warm period right now.
> Keep in mind that these "global" climate trends aren't actually global.
> Some parts of the Earth cool while others warm. At least for the
> Pleistocene, these "global" trends are based mostly on isotopic analysis
> of the ice in Greenland.
Factual evidence has very little impact upon the environmental chicken
littles. They are arrogant enough to assume our short (VERY SHORT)
presence in the global environment can have such an impact. Proof isn't
required, just feelings.
> You're deliberately taking one of his quotes out of context. The reason
> the melting of the polar ice caps isn't a big deal is because it happens
> so slowly that the buildings in the coastal cities that would supposedly
> be flooded will have already been destroyed or abandoned.
He's quite a windmill to tilt at isn't he ;)
NM
NM
NM
nkennedy wrote:
>
> "You're deliberately taking one of his quotes out of context. The reason
> the melting of the polar ice caps isn't a big deal is because it happens
> so slowly that the buildings in the coastal cities that would supposedly
> be flooded will have already been destroyed or abandoned"->Stuart Dunn
>
> Give it up stupid. The CATO bunch along with the Fraser Institute
> are incompetent liars and propagandists.
> This scum insult decent people by printing something so childish
> and expecting to "pull it off".
> "An ice cube in a glass". What an insult.
> You'll do your cause better if you just drop it, but I hope you keep it
> going. The more people that see the cheap lies of these right-wing
> (S)tink tanks the better.
>
> Neil K
nkennedy
" "->NM
Listening to these two guys say nothing, I wonder:
Am I reading "Bert and Ernie meet the Ice Cap"
Naw, Bert and Ernie are nice people.
Neil K
Don Wagner
So when are you going to explain what caused the warming/cooling
cycles long before there were Cato and Fraser institutes, or for
that matter, yappy leftwing assholes like you?
Don Wagner
nkennedy
My! Now we have a REAL dopey to add to Bert and Ernie.
Look prick, go back to the biginning of the discussion, maybe you'll see
what a bunch of arseholes you FI "grads" are.
Neil K
Paul Zrimsek
>So when are you going to explain what caused the warming/cooling
>cycles long before there were Cato and Fraser institutes, or for
>that matter, yappy leftwing assholes like you?
Probably the day after he explains how a slab of ice millions of
square kilometers in area and only a few meters thick is strong enough
to stay in place without being supported by the underlying water. I've
been waiting four days for a rebuttal on this one.
NM
are whining about. Just shows its simply some partisan dogma they don't
have the capacity to investigate the veracity of themselves.
NM
Don Wagner wrote:
>
> nkennedy <nken...@seascape.ns.ca> wrote in message
> news:39D7817B...@seascape.ns.ca...
> > " "->Stuart Dunn
> > " "->NM
> >
> > Listening to these two guys say nothing, I wonder:
> >
> > Am I reading "Bert and Ernie meet the Ice Cap"
> >
> > Naw, Bert and Ernie are nice people.
>
> So when are you going to explain what caused the warming/cooling
> cycles long before there were Cato and Fraser institutes, or for
> that matter, yappy leftwing assholes like you?
>
> Don Wagner
NM
happening with no discernable changes since the pleistocene?
NM
Can you? I think you can.
David Carrell
<39D69B08...@seascape.ns.ca>:
> This scum insult decent people by printing something so
> childish
>and expecting to "pull it off".
> "An ice cube in a glass". What an insult.
Well the best analogies are the simple ones which are also accurate.
This one fits. People realize glasses don't overflow as the floating
ice melts; neither will the planet. (Now land based ice is a different
issue, but that is not applicable to nearly all of the artic ice.)
>You'll do your cause better if you just drop it, but I hope you keep
>it going. The more people that see the cheap lies of these
>right-wing (S)tink tanks the better.
Bring it on. Already the ridicule of Cato has been rebutted but feel
free to share your ignorance here as well.
David Carrell
<39D7817B...@seascape.ns.ca>:
>Listening to these two guys say nothing, I wonder:
>
>Am I reading "Bert and Ernie meet the Ice Cap"
>
>Naw, Bert and Ernie are nice people.
>
>
Why not actually try posting something intelligible. So far you are
nothing but bluster and ad hominem arguments
David Carrell
<39D79435...@seascape.ns.ca>:
>My! Now we have a REAL dopey to add to Bert and Ernie.
>Look prick, go back to the biginning of the discussion, maybe you'll
>see what a bunch of arseholes you FI "grads" are.
>
Been here since the thread began, the original poster has been
incredibly absent since his post was clearly and severely thrashed. And
you have yet to even post single coherent argument. (Your one measely
attempt was more soundly defeated than even the original poster's weak
arguments, by myself and others.)
David Carrell
<1eho082.1c7v5x012p86ioN@[192.168.0.144]>:
>If this was true, we would also have to assume that there is no ice
>on the south pole either, because its also land, and water flows
>down hill.
>
Actually the ice at the SP does flow down to the ocean. It falls nearly
10,000 ft to the 'shore'. Even though the temperature never reaches 10
oF, the ice moves about 1 inch per day.
BTW, the comment "its ALSO land" (emphasis added) is inaccurate. Yes
the SP is on land (at least the geographic pole is) but he ALSO is
inaccurate as the NP is not 'on land'.
Bill Gentry
environmental catastrophe resulting from it ( or not resulting from it ) are
mainly fools who think that real knowledge comes from watching the 6 O'clock
news.
The pathology of the global warming hysteria appears to be very similar to
the Y2K "problem" that never materialized. I've been a programmer for 10
years, and I'd done quite a bit of Y2K work myself, so I WAS an expert on
the problem. However, these idiots who had no idea what they were talking
about were the absolute bane of my existence. Some radio pundit or TV
anchorman ( with NO background in data processing ) says that every
electronic device is going to fail on 1/1/2000, no one challenges this
obvious absurdity, and the world panics.
Any proponent of global warming hysteria ought to examine where they get
their "information" from before they continue to cause problems and make
complete jack-asses out of themselves. Even if you ARE a climatologist,
climatology seems to be quite the "soft" science to me: How often is the
weather-man wrong? Often enough.
David Carrell <car...@netcommander.com> wrote in message
news:8FC1E0FA...@209.217.138.149...
Mike Warren
> It appears that most of these "experts" on global warming and the
> imminent environmental catastrophe resulting from it ( or not
> resulting from it ) are mainly fools who think that real knowledge
> comes from watching the 6 O'clock news.
And dozens of ``stupid'' Nobel laureates...
--
Mike Warren <mike at mike dash warren dot com>
<URL:http://www.mike-warren.com>
M-x yow, ``.. my NOSE is NUMB!''
Bill Gentry
issue, and the empirical evidence they provide says it all. Thank you.
Mike Warren <use...@mike-warren.com> wrote in message
news:QsuC5.24714$P5.5...@news1.rdc1.ab.home.com...
Mike Warren
> Mike Warren <use...@mike-warren.com> wrote in message
> news:QsuC5.24714$P5.5...@news1.rdc1.ab.home.com...
> > "Bill Gentry" <billg...@home.com> writes:
> > > It appears that most of these "experts" on global warming and
> > > the imminent environmental catastrophe resulting from it ( or
> > > not resulting from it ) are mainly fools who think that real
> > > knowledge comes from watching the 6 O'clock news.
> > And dozens of ``stupid'' Nobel laureates...
> Your list of said Nobel Laureates, their credentials, their stand on
> the issue, and the empirical evidence they provide says it all.
> Thank you.
From <URL:http://www.sierralegal.org/reports/betray_trust1.html>:
``The World Scientists' Warning to Humanity was issued in 1992 on
behalf of over 1600 scientists, including a majority of living Nobel
Prize winners in the sciences.''
A copy of that document is available at
<URL:http://deoxy.org/sciwarn.htm> or countless other sites, as your
favourite search-engine will illuminate in seconds.
--
Mike Warren <mike at mike dash warren dot com>
<URL:http://www.mike-warren.com>
M-x yow, ``Now I am depressed...''
E. Barry Bruyea
wrote:
>
> ``The World Scientists' Warning to Humanity was issued in 1992 on
> behalf of over 1600 scientists, including a majority of living Nobel
> Prize winners in the sciences.''
And how many of those "World Scientists" predicted Global Freezing
back in the early 70's? How many of them joined the 'Stargazer"
predicting total environmental disaster as a result of the oil fires
in Kuwait during and after the Gulf War? I'm neither denying or
confirming that Global Warming is upon us: it very well may be, (or,
it could be a cyclical condition), but using 'World Scientists" as an
absolute reason to believe in the Global Warming theory doesn't have a
lot of credibility, given their past record of disaster prediction.
Bill Gentry
and OVER again has no credibility, regardless of "credentials". Whoever
said that a "stopped clock is right twice a day" never had to deal with
these fear mongering "experts". You have to give them some credit, though,
they just keep at it: Follow the career of Paul "Population Bomb" Erlich
(sp)
The scary thing is, these guys want to dictate policy to the rest of us.
E. Barry Bruyea <sha...@dusk.com> wrote in message
news:39daffce...@news.gate-way.net...
> On Wed, 04 Oct 2000 06:17:57 GMT, Mike Warren <use...@mike-warren.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> >
> > ``The World Scientists' Warning to Humanity was issued in 1992 on
> > behalf of over 1600 scientists, including a majority of living Nobel
> > Prize winners in the sciences.''
Just like all the Y2K "warnings" I got a couple of years ago.
Bill Gentry
> "Bill Gentry" <billg...@home.com> writes:
> > Mike Warren <use...@mike-warren.com> wrote in message
> > news:QsuC5.24714$P5.5...@news1.rdc1.ab.home.com...
> > > "Bill Gentry" <billg...@home.com> writes:
>
> > > > It appears that most of these "experts" on global warming and
> > > > the imminent environmental catastrophe resulting from it ( or
> > > > not resulting from it ) are mainly fools who think that real
> > > > knowledge comes from watching the 6 O'clock news.
>
> > > And dozens of ``stupid'' Nobel laureates...
>
> > Your list of said Nobel Laureates, their credentials, their stand on
> > the issue, and the empirical evidence they provide says it all.
> > Thank you.
>
>
> From <URL:http://www.sierralegal.org/reports/betray_trust1.html>:
>
> ``The World Scientists' Warning to Humanity was issued in 1992 on
> behalf of over 1600 scientists, including a majority of living Nobel
> Prize winners in the sciences.''
>
> A copy of that document is available at
> <URL:http://deoxy.org/sciwarn.htm> or countless other sites, as your
> favourite search-engine will illuminate in seconds.
I think I'll read "The population bomb" by Paul Erlich instead. Amazon has
a good used copy.
Here's a good Y2K meltdown link. I recommend you convert all of your cash
to gold immediately:
http://www.y2k2000.org/disaster.htm
Experts say you'll be able to buy a wife with 2 cases of peanut butter after
the meltdown. Sell your PC and stock up now.
Marcus Turner
"Bill Gentry" <billg...@home.com> wrote in message
news:ecHC5.33319$ib7.4...@news1.rdc1.nj.home.com...
> Experts say you'll be able to buy a wife with 2 cases of peanut butter
after
> the meltdown. Sell your PC and stock up now.
Crunchy or Smooth?
Mike Warren
> On Wed, 04 Oct 2000 06:17:57 GMT, Mike Warren <use...@mike-warren.com>
> wrote:
> > ``The World Scientists' Warning to Humanity was issued in 1992 on
> > behalf of over 1600 scientists, including a majority of living Nobel
> > Prize winners in the sciences.''
>
>
> And how many of those "World Scientists" predicted Global Freezing
> back in the early 70's?
Who knows. This is still a possibility, triggered by warming and
increased fresh-water on the surface of the northern Atlantic, as I
posted earlier.
> I'm neither denying or confirming that Global Warming is upon us: it
> very well may be, (or, it could be a cyclical condition), but using
> 'World Scientists" as an absolute reason to believe in the Global
> Warming theory doesn't have a lot of credibility, given their past
> record of disaster prediction.
I'd much rather believe a plethora of Nobel laureates than appeals to
``common sense''.
--
Mike Warren <mike at mike dash warren dot com>
<URL:http://www.mike-warren.com>
M-x yow, ``Somewhere in Tenafly, New Jersey, a chiropractor is viewing
``Leave it to Beaver''!''
Bill Gentry
Marcus Turner <mtu...@mobiusg.com> wrote in message
news:VBHC5.56$dO3....@dca1-nnrp2.news.digex.net...
I think Crunchy may be a better protein source, but hell, I'm no
nutritionist either. Just remember... THE END IS NEAR! ... Just as we'll
be serving FREE BEER TOMORROW!
>
>
Bill Van
<jam...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>It is amazing that although this is supposed to be the warmest century
>on record, not one scientist noticed until 1989...
>
I'm no expert, but I can't imagine there are many centuries for which we
have accurate enough temperature statistics to use in that kind of
comparison. Judging how warm or cold the 12th century was, for instance,
would not be a very precise science, would it? What would it use, tree
growth rings?
So the 20th would be the warmest century on record out of how many?
Three? Two?
bill
David Carrell
<awKC5.34013$ib7.4...@news1.rdc1.nj.home.com>:
>I think Crunchy may be a better protein source, but hell, I'm no
>nutritionist either. Just remember... THE END IS NEAR! ... Just
>as we'll be serving FREE BEER TOMORROW!
>
>
Actually (as I remember, but neither am I a nutritionist) the
nutritional value of peanut butter is largely (totally?) independent of
the crunchy or smooth debate.
But I will be there for the beer either way.
Mike Warren
> I'm no expert, but I can't imagine there are many centuries for
> which we have accurate enough temperature statistics to use in that
> kind of comparison. Judging how warm or cold the 12th century was,
> for instance, would not be a very precise science, would it?
Sure it would; ice cores.
> What would it use, tree growth rings?
>
> So the 20th would be the warmest century on record out of how many?
> Three? Two?
Hundreds.
--
Mike Warren <mike at mike dash warren dot com>
<URL:http://www.mike-warren.com>
M-x yow, ``HUMAN REPLICAS are inserted into VATS of NUTRITIONAL YEAST...''
E. Barry Bruyea
wrote:
>On Wed, 04 Oct 2000 20:26:47 -0700, Bill Van <Bil...@canada.com>
>wrote:
>
>>In article <qp2ntso90cc9ik1vl...@4ax.com>, James Goneaux
>><jam...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>>
>>>It is amazing that although this is supposed to be the warmest century
>>>on record, not one scientist noticed until 1989...
Well.......they noticed something in the early 70's...when they warned
us of 'Global Freezing'. Must of flipped a coin.
nkennedy
suspicious of anything that can have THAT range of
interpretation"->James Goneaux
Here's a site where you may find a point of view that will interest you.
I find PEW studies to be usually objective, but of course I judge
"objective" from my point of view.
http://www.pewclimate.org/media/pr_warming.html
Neil K
nkennedy
will result in warming, which is bad?!?" -> James Goneaux
It seems to me me this has been the nub of your point all along.
If I got it right you are saying that the assertion of global
warming is a complicated question. (i.e. there are no simple answers)
The PEW article seems to accept global warming as a fact and the
answer to it is so complex that we had better face it, because of the
type of contradictory effect of our various activities.
I'm not up on this stuff, but when I read that part I was left with
the impression that sulphur dioxide "used up" some of the sulphates in
the atomosphere thereby interfering with a natural cooling factor. So
cutting sulphur dioxide will leave more sulphates, which is good.
Neil K
Don Wagner
Siobhan Medeiros <s...@direct.ca> wrote in message
news:39dd546b...@news.direct.ca...
> On Sun, 1 Oct 2000 00:32:14 -0700, "Don Wagner" <do...@telus.net>> >news:39D6CA0E...@seascape.ns.ca...
> >> "Did you ever watch an ice cube in a glass?" -> Don Wagner
> >>
> >> Go on, you stupid fucker! The ice cube is ON the glass, not IN the
> >> glass. But you never pay attention.
> >
> >Attention to what? to your lack of proof that the icecaps had ever
> >melted in the past and the continents flooded in spite of all the
> >cooling and warming cycles. But then you know better because
> >you are a leftwinger and were BORN being correct.
> >
> >Don Wagner
> >
> >
> >
>
> Give me a break. There is plenty of proof of past flooding, as any
> 1st-year student of geology will tell you there are plenty of rock
> formations on dry land which were obviously formed underwater.
That's right and they can be attributed to other geological forces
such as mountain building. There are also examples of rock
formations underwater which were formed on dry land.
Don Wagner
>
>
> No man is an island.
>
Don Wagner
> On Sun, 1 Oct 2000 12:00:48 -0700, "Don Wagner" <do...@telus.net>
> >> " "->Stuart Dunn
> >> " "->NM
> >>
> >>
> >> Am I reading "Bert and Ernie meet the Ice Cap"
> >>
> >> Naw, Bert and Ernie are nice people.
> >
> >cycles long before there were Cato and Fraser institutes, or for
> >that matter, yappy leftwing assholes like you?
> >
> >Don Wagner
> >
> >
> >
>
> experienced during the ice age. How's that?
Is it faster than that experienced in the last 2 or 3 ice ages?
What caused the warming the last time it happened?
Don Wagner
David Carrell
>the impression that sulphur dioxide "used up" some of the sulphates
>in the atomosphere thereby interfering with a natural cooling
>factor. So cutting sulphur dioxide will leave more sulphates, which
>is good.
So you got confused about whether the SO2 caused warming or cooling
from this quote, "efforts to reduce sulfur dioxide... could result in
increased warming"?
Seems quite clear to me. The claim is that reducing SO2 (a current big
push by the administration, which they underestimate the cost of) will
accellerate global warming.
Of course you gotta bye GW before you worry about us increasing it by
cleaning up the air more.
Siobhan Medeiros
wrote:
>and...@netneurotic.de (Andrew J. Brehm) wrote in
><1eho082.1c7v5x012p86ioN@[192.168.0.144]>:
>
>>If this was true, we would also have to assume that there is no ice
>>on the south pole either, because its also land, and water flows
>>down hill.
>>
>
>Actually the ice at the SP does flow down to the ocean. It falls nearly
>10,000 ft to the 'shore'. Even though the temperature never reaches 10
>oF, the ice moves about 1 inch per day.
Take the glass, fill it with water and then drop the ice cube in and
see what happens.
>
>BTW, the comment "its ALSO land" (emphasis added) is inaccurate. Yes
>the SP is on land (at least the geographic pole is) but he ALSO is
>inaccurate as the NP is not 'on land'.
>
>DAC
>--
>speaking only for me
>
>______________________________________________________________________
>Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Still Only $9.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
> With Servers In California, Texas And Virginia - The Worlds Uncensored News Source
>
No man is an island.
Siobhan Medeiros
wrote:
>On Tue, 26 Sep 2000 23:50:29 GMT, John Corman <jco...@server.xxx>
>wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 25 Sep 2000 23:33:12 -0700, Alan Baker
>><Alan_...@bc.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>>
>>>In article <39d02979...@news.direct.ca>, s...@direct.ca (Siobhan
>>>Medeiros) wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Mr. Michaels says the headlines regarding melting ice caps amount to
>>>>blatant scaremongering. Because the ice is already floating in the
>>>>ocean, he says, it would not raise sea levels even if it melted
>>>>completely. 'You can prove that just by watching the ice melt in a
>>>>highball,' he says. "
>>>>
>>>>A in grade 3 science, F in Grade 6 Geography. When those of you who
>>>>passed that course finish laughing, read on...
>>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>Please don't tell me you believe that the level of water in glass rises
>>>when ice that is floating in it melts.
>>==================================================
>>It's amazing how we get these concepts, isn't it. I just assumed,
>>with out thinking about it, that if all the ice bergs melted we'd have
>>a catastrophe.
>>On the other hand, what happens if all the land bearing ice melts?
>
A catastrophe.
>Its called geostatic rebound.
>
>Basically, all that ice weighs millions of tonnes. When it is gone,
>the land "bounces" upward.
>
Which compounds the effects of melting since the continent displaces
more water. However, this effect is extremely slow, about 1 inch per
century so it's not really much of a consideration.
>
>James Goneaux
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------
>"The future is already here. It's just unevenly distributed."
>William Gibson
>
>jam...@my-deja.com
Siobhan Medeiros
<hbl...@mirage.skypoint.com> wrote:
>In talk.politics.libertarian Siobhan Medeiros <s...@direct.ca> wrote:
>> "No one denies that we have been experiencing a slight warming trend
>> through the 20th century, says Patrick Michaels, senior fellow in
>> environmental sciences at the Cato Institute in Washington, D.C."
>
>> That's right, the head guy.
>
>He's not the head guy, silly. Here's a hint: when you try to
>attack somebody's credibility, don't make a blatant error in
>your first point.....
>
Well let's see. He's THE senior fellow...that sounds like the head
guy to me, or at least one of them.
>> "But the public should know that for political reasons governments in
>> Canada and the US have chosen to emphasize only one particular climate
>> hsitory out of several that are available. 'Naturally,' he says,
>> 'they chose the hottest. The rest are not remarkable at all'"
>
>> If that sounds pretty dumb, read on - the best is yet to come.
>
>It's not dumb at all, it's the facts as reported in science journals.
Which ones?
>
>> "Mr. Michaels says the headlines regarding melting ice caps amount to
>> blatant scaremongering. Because the ice is already floating in the
>> ocean, he says, it would not raise sea levels even if it melted
>> completely. 'You can prove that just by watching the ice melt in a
>> highball,' he says. "
>
>> A in grade 3 science, F in Grade 6 Geography. When those of you who
>> passed that course finish laughing, read on...
>
>I didn't read the full report, but the point he may be making is
>that the ice caps tend to melt around the edges first, which tend
>to be over water -- in which case he is correct.
And if pigs could fly, he might be correct too.
I see absolutely no such assertation in this quote, and if he did mean
that it would negate the point he is making, wouldn't you agree.
>Only small amounts
>of the polar ice caps are on land. If that part melted, he would
>be incorrect, but that doesn't appear to be happening yet.
Where do you think the Canadian and Greenland ice caps are melting?
And in the case of Antartica - dead wrong. Take the glass, fill it up
with water, and then drop an ice cube into it and see what happens.
>
>> " There are also hints that even if some artic ice is melting, it is
>> building rapidly elsewhere. A few years ago a team of enthusiasts
>> tried to recover some old fighter planes that had been forced to land
>> on Greenland's ice cap during the Second World War. They found the
>> planes under 63 feet of ice"
>
>> Ok, let's display total ignorance of the behaviour of glaciers. Move
>> on...
>
>Do you have evidence that the ice caps are thinner now than they
>were 100 years ago? If so, please provide a reference, because I
>read a lot of science and have yet to see such a claim.
Yes, from the US Navy. Submarines travelling under the North Polar
Ice Cap report it as 40% thinner than it was just 40 years ago.
The conclusion is reported in BC Report Magazine, January 27, 2000.
>
>> "In fact Mr. Michaels, over three-fourths of the measurable warming
>> that has taken place during the last century has occurred in two cold,
>> high pressure areas, specifically Siberia and north-western Canada,
>> with Edmonton at the epicentre of the phenomenon."
>
>> This is in complete contrast to everything I have ever read on the
>> subject. And I've been at it awhile.
>
>I've seen many versions, with his being one of them. None of the
>versions are showing any significant changes in middle latitiudes
>at the earth's surface.
Even if this were true, which I doubt, it would make the situation
even more serious since it would mean that the effect was concentrated
at the poles - you know, where the ice is.
>
>> The last part is really good...
>
>> "'Albertans should ask themselves if global warming has harmed their
>> way of life.' he says."
>
>> In other words, say goodbye to Alberta winters and hello to October in
>> swim trunks. And maybe if we cut down the rain forest we can all go
>> live at Club Med Brazil.
>
>Do you think Albertans have had to change their lifestyle? How
>have they been affected?
Relatively little yet. The point is that the article is now trying to
claim that global warming is a favorable development.
>
>> How stupid are these guys? Or maybe the question should be, how
>> stupid do they think we are?
>
>I don't know... you haven't provided any science or logic to argue
>against, just some vague complaints about a renowned scientist not
>being smart enough for you.
Renowned scientist? Give me a break. If this guy repeated this stuff
in front of any group of credible scientists he'd be laughed out of
the room. Besides, I didn't see any "Dr." in front of his name, did
you?
>You'd have more credibility if you'd
>discuss his errors rather than just launch a series of personal
>attacks.
Congratulations, that was the whole point of the article. Sorry, but
there's no nice way of saying "you're either a liar or an idiot"
Siobhan Medeiros
wrote:
>
>nkennedy <nken...@seascape.ns.ca> wrote in message
>news:39D6CA0E...@seascape.ns.ca...
>> "Did you ever watch an ice cube in a glass?" -> Don Wagner
>>
>> Go on, you stupid fucker! The ice cube is ON the glass, not IN the
>> glass. But you never pay attention.
>
>Attention to what? to your lack of proof that the icecaps had ever
>melted in the past and the continents flooded in spite of all the
>cooling and warming cycles. But then you know better because
>you are a leftwinger and were BORN being correct.
>
>Don Wagner
>
>
>
Give me a break. There is plenty of proof of past flooding, as any
1st-year student of geology will tell you there are plenty of rock
formations on dry land which were obviously formed underwater.
Siobhan Medeiros
wrote:
>nken...@seascape.ns.ca (nkennedy) wrote in
><39D69B08...@seascape.ns.ca>:
>
>> This scum insult decent people by printing something so
>> childish
>>and expecting to "pull it off".
>> "An ice cube in a glass". What an insult.
>
>
>Well the best analogies are the simple ones which are also accurate.
>This one fits. People realize glasses don't overflow as the floating
>ice melts; neither will the planet. (Now land based ice is a different
>issue, but that is not applicable to nearly all of the artic ice.)\
But it is to all of the Antartic Ice. Unless you can figure how to
only melt half the planet...
>
>>You'll do your cause better if you just drop it, but I hope you keep
>>it going. The more people that see the cheap lies of these
>>right-wing (S)tink tanks the better.
>
>Bring it on. Already the ridicule of Cato has been rebutted but feel
>free to share your ignorance here as well.
Rebutted? Did I miss something? The only rebuttal I've heard so far
is "if he had said this he would only have been half wrong"
Siobhan Medeiros
wrote:
>nken...@seascape.ns.ca (nkennedy) wrote in
><39D79435...@seascape.ns.ca>:
>
>>My! Now we have a REAL dopey to add to Bert and Ernie.
>>Look prick, go back to the biginning of the discussion, maybe you'll
>>see what a bunch of arseholes you FI "grads" are.
>>
>
>Been here since the thread began, the original poster has been
>incredibly absent since his post was clearly and severely thrashed. And
>you have yet to even post single coherent argument. (Your one measely
>attempt was more soundly defeated than even the original poster's weak
>arguments, by myself and others.)
>
>DAC
>--
>speaking only for me
>
Speak of the devil. Here I am sorry I was late, I was busy having a
life. Now please explain to me why my post has been thrashed by the
argument of "well, if he had said this he would only have been half
wrong."
>______________________________________________________________________
>Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Still Only $9.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
> With Servers In California, Texas And Virginia - The Worlds Uncensored News Source
>
No man is an island.
Siobhan Medeiros
wrote:
>
>nkennedy <nken...@seascape.ns.ca> wrote in message
>news:39D7817B...@seascape.ns.ca...
>> " "->Stuart Dunn
>> " "->NM
>>
>> Listening to these two guys say nothing, I wonder:
>>
>> Am I reading "Bert and Ernie meet the Ice Cap"
>>
>> Naw, Bert and Ernie are nice people.
>
>So when are you going to explain what caused the warming/cooling
>cycles long before there were Cato and Fraser institutes, or for
>that matter, yappy leftwing assholes like you?
>
>Don Wagner
>
>
>
The current warming is occuring 10 times faster than what was
experienced during the ice age. How's that?
No man is an island.
Siobhan Medeiros
wrote:
>On Wed, 04 Oct 2000 06:17:57 GMT, Mike Warren <use...@mike-warren.com>
>wrote:
>
>
>>
>> ``The World Scientists' Warning to Humanity was issued in 1992 on
>> behalf of over 1600 scientists, including a majority of living Nobel
>> Prize winners in the sciences.''
>
>
>And how many of those "World Scientists" predicted Global Freezing
>back in the early 70's?
Yeah, and remember when the scientific community said the world was
flat, and now all of a sudden it's round? The shit they pull!
To your original question, the answer is pretty few. Here's the
lowdown on "global cooling"
Global cooling was a theory put forward by a small group of American
Scientists who using satellite data, found that certain masses of air
were cooler than expected. Now, they knew that certain aerosol
pollutants reflected the sun's rays, which could theoretically lower
the temperature. So they published their findings and theory, where
it was picked up by several American news agencies. The theory
appeared on a few TV programs such as "In Search Of.." and for a while
it became a significant public concern.
However, the hype didn't make it far from the North American continent
for some very interesting reasons. European and Soviet scientists,
using their own satellite data, were unable to confirm the American
results. Nor were they able to find any other evidence of "global
cooling" inside their own countries. Finally, an American scientist
became suspicious of the original data. He found that the group had
failed to take into account that the satellites they were using were
descending at a rate of about 1 km per year. When this was taken into
account, he found that the data indicated a slight WARMING trend.
The American media being what it is, they failed to adequately report
the story refuting the theory. Within a couple of years it had died
out completely.
The difference between this and the global warming theory?
1. We have a real live example of the greenhouse effect in
action; the planet Venus. What's more, we have verified the effect
experimentally under Terran conditions.
2. Global Cooling was expounded by a dozen or so scientists. How
many thousands have been warning us about Global Warming again?
3. No evidence besides the original flawed survey was found to
support Global Cooling and so the theory died out in 2, 3 years at the
most. Global Warming, on the other hand, started in the early 80's
and is still around today, most likely because there is a truckload of
scientific evidence to back it up.
Of course, even if Global Cooling had anywhere near the credibility
the Global Warming does, it still wouldn't make sense to discount
Global Warming because of it. Just because a group of people is wrong
once, doesn't mean they're wrong again, especially considering that
the mechanism behind the greenhouse effect wasn't understood until
AFTER the Global Cooling hysteria died down.
>How many of them joined the 'Stargazer"
>predicting total environmental disaster as a result of the oil fires
>in Kuwait during and after the Gulf War?
It's interesting that you don't consider pumping thousands of tons of
poisonous smoke into the atmosphere an environmental disaster.
> I'm neither denying or
>confirming that Global Warming is upon us: it very well may be, (or,
>it could be a cyclical condition), but using 'World Scientists" as an
>absolute reason to believe in the Global Warming theory doesn't have a
>lot of credibility, given their past record of disaster prediction.
>
First off, as I've explained before Global Warming has been accepted
by the Scientific Community several orders of magnitude beyond what
Global Cooling was.
Secondly, the Cato Institute has far, far less credibility given their
funding, obvious bias, and inherent stupidity.
Siobhan Medeiros
wrote:
>Thanks for proving my point. Any individual or group that is wrong OVER
>and OVER again has no credibility, regardless of "credentials". Whoever
>said that a "stopped clock is right twice a day" never had to deal with
>these fear mongering "experts". You have to give them some credit, though,
>they just keep at it: Follow the career of Paul "Population Bomb" Erlich
>(sp)
>
You mean the vast majority of the world's peoples aren't living in
poverty, laying waste to the land around them to sustain themselves?
Seems to me that the population bomb is still ticking.
>The scary thing is, these guys want to dictate policy to the rest of us.
>
As opposed to you guys?
Siobhan Medeiros
wrote:
>On Wed, 04 Oct 2000 10:05:07 GMT, sha...@dusk.com (E. Barry Bruyea)
>wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 04 Oct 2000 06:17:57 GMT, Mike Warren <use...@mike-warren.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>> ``The World Scientists' Warning to Humanity was issued in 1992 on
>>> behalf of over 1600 scientists, including a majority of living Nobel
>>> Prize winners in the sciences.''
>>
>>
>>And how many of those "World Scientists" predicted Global Freezing
>>back in the early 70's?
>
>Not a few.
Very few.
> Dr Stephen Schneider is one. Now one of the most vocal
>proponents of a human-caused global warming trend, he wrote "The
>Genesis Strategy" in 1976, which warned of the coming glaciation.
>
>He also wrote a glowing endorsement for the book "The Cooling" which
>predicted the next Ice Age.
>
>Schneider also published scientific papers. In "Science" in July 1971,
>for instance, he wrote:
>
>"It is found that even an increase by a factor of 8 in the amount of
>CO2, which is highly unlikely in the next several thousand years, will
>produce an increase in the surface temperature of less than 2 deg.
>K.
>
>An increase by a factor of 4 in the equilibrium dust concentration in
>the global atmosphere, which cannot be ruled out as a possibility
>within the next century, could decrease the mean surface temperature
>by as much as 3.5 deg. K. If sustained over a period of
>several years, such a temperature decrease could be sufficient to
>trigger an ice age!"
That's one guy.
>
>He is also the guy who said: "To capture the public imagination, we
>have to offer up some scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic
>statements and little mention of any doubts one might have. Each of us
>has to decide between being effective, and being honest."
>
>Dr. John Gribbin is another scientist on the forefront of the climate
>change debate. Unfortunately, he is saddled with the legacy of
>maintaining a rather loony theory in his book "The Jupiter Effect"
>(1975), to whit:
>
>"A remarkable chain of evidence, ...points to 1982 as the year in
>which the Los Angeles region of the San Andreas fault will be
>subjected to the most massive earthquake known in the populated
>regions of the earth in this century. ... in 1982 when the Moon is in
>the Seventh House, and Jupiter aligns with Mars and with the other
>seven planets of the solar system, Los Angeles will be destroyed."
>
>This from a man with a degree in Astrophysics from Cambridge!
That's another guy.
So far, you picked two mistaken scientists out of hundreds of
thousands. Not very impressive evidence for claiming that the "Global
Cooling" theory was "widely supported". Oh wait a minute, that second
guys was supporting "the Jupiter Effect" which has pretty much nothing
to do with "Global Cooling". And since I didn't see a mass exodus
from Los Angeles in 1982, I'll assume that one didn't gain much
credibility either.
>
>It is amazing that although this is supposed to be the warmest century
>on record, not one scientist noticed until 1989...
Because the methods of determining past temperatures hadn't been
developed yet, what do you expect?
And by the way, 1998 was the hottest year not only of the century,
but very likely the millenium as well according to those same methods.
Oh, by the way, I understand that the South Pacific Island of Tuvalu
will have to be evacuated because apparently it's going to be
underwater in 50 years. What's your explanation for that? And no,
it's not the only area having problems. Beaches all over the world
are shrinking.
>
>James Goneaux
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------
>"The future is already here. It's just unevenly distributed."
>William Gibson
>
>jam...@my-deja.com
Siobhan Medeiros
wrote:
>
>Mike Warren <use...@mike-warren.com> wrote in message
>news:pYzC5.26546$P5.5...@news1.rdc1.ab.home.com...
>> "Bill Gentry" <billg...@home.com> writes:
>> > Mike Warren <use...@mike-warren.com> wrote in message
>> > news:QsuC5.24714$P5.5...@news1.rdc1.ab.home.com...
>> > > "Bill Gentry" <billg...@home.com> writes:
>>
>> > > > It appears that most of these "experts" on global warming and
>> > > > the imminent environmental catastrophe resulting from it ( or
>> > > > not resulting from it ) are mainly fools who think that real
>> > > > knowledge comes from watching the 6 O'clock news.
>>
>> > > And dozens of ``stupid'' Nobel laureates...
>>
>> > Your list of said Nobel Laureates, their credentials, their stand on
>> > the issue, and the empirical evidence they provide says it all.
>> > Thank you.
>>
>>
>> From <URL:http://www.sierralegal.org/reports/betray_trust1.html>:
>>
>> ``The World Scientists' Warning to Humanity was issued in 1992 on
>> behalf of over 1600 scientists, including a majority of living Nobel
>> Prize winners in the sciences.''
>>
>> A copy of that document is available at
>> <URL:http://deoxy.org/sciwarn.htm> or countless other sites, as your
>> favourite search-engine will illuminate in seconds.
>
>I think I'll read "The population bomb" by Paul Erlich instead. Amazon has
>a good used copy.
>
As I said before, the population bomb is still ticking. Could be Mr.
Elrich was just late.
>Here's a good Y2K meltdown link. I recommend you convert all of your cash
>to gold immediately:
>http://www.y2k2000.org/disaster.htm
>
>Experts say you'll be able to buy a wife with 2 cases of peanut butter after
>the meltdown. Sell your PC and stock up now.
>
I don't suppose the worldwide crusade to Y2K proof practically every
computer on the planet could have had something to do with the lack of
problems?
Bill Gentry
Whoever it was who said "even a stopped clock is right twice a day" never
heard of Erlich.
>
> >Here's a good Y2K meltdown link. I recommend you convert all of your
cash
> >to gold immediately:
> >http://www.y2k2000.org/disaster.htm
> >
> >Experts say you'll be able to buy a wife with 2 cases of peanut butter
after
> >the meltdown. Sell your PC and stock up now.
> >
>
> I don't suppose the worldwide crusade to Y2K proof practically every
> computer on the planet could have had something to do with the lack of
> problems?
Every computer was not "proofed". Most of them weren't. Firmware in
VCR's, Autos, Cameras, and thousands of other devices were not touched.
Could NOT be touched without a replacement of the entire control unit.
Last time I checked, my 1991 VCR still worked, in spite of prediction by the
"experts".
These things never keep the chicken littles from moving on to the next
catastrophe, though. Too bad they're never held accountable for the trouble
they cause. Hey, ATTENTION TRIAL LAWYERS... JOB OPPORTUNITY.
See ya in court!
Paul Zrimsek
wrote:
>>Basically, all that ice weighs millions of tonnes. When it is gone,
>>the land "bounces" upward.
>Which compounds the effects of melting since the continent displaces
>more water. However, this effect is extremely slow, about 1 inch per
>century so it's not really much of a consideration.
"The most ubiquitous source of regional submergence/emergence at tide
gauge sites is the Post Glacial Rebound (PGR) that continues from the
last deglaciation. It is manifest over the entire planet, not just at
locations ice-covered at the last glacial maximum. Vertical crustal
movements due to PGR at most sites are of approximately the same
magnitude as the global (eustatic) rise.
"....As particular examples of the effect of PGR, consider Baltimore,
Maryland, and Stockholm, Sweden. The long-term (order 100 years) sea
level rise of approximately 3.5 mm per year at Baltimore (and
everywhere else in the Chesapeake region) is about twice the global
rate because of subsidence due to the peripheral bulge collapse from
the last deglaciation [ Tushingham and Peltier, 1991]. In contrast,
sea level at Stockholm falls by about 4 mm per year as land in the
region continues to emerge in response to the disappearance of the ice
there during the last deglaciation."
http://earth.agu.org/revgeophys/dougla01/node3.html
Paul Zrimsek
wrote:
>>Well the best analogies are the simple ones which are also accurate.
>>This one fits. People realize glasses don't overflow as the floating
>>ice melts; neither will the planet. (Now land based ice is a different
>>issue, but that is not applicable to nearly all of the artic ice.)\
>
>But it is to all of the Antartic Ice. Unless you can figure how to
>only melt half the planet...
"It is hypothesized that Antarctica will not contribute to sea-level
rise because it is just too cold there. In fact, if the rise in
global temperature increases global precipitation rates, Antarctica is
expected to store water as snow and ice, rather than contribute
meltwater to the oceans. However, as ocean temperatures increase, the
ice shelves around Antarctica may melt. While this may not contribute
to sea-level rise (the ice shelves are already buoyant on the water's
surface), the loss of the shelves may make the continental ice sheet
unstable. Most scientists agree, however, that the Antarctic ice
sheet will not pose a problem within the next century. "
http://gcmd.gsfc.nasa.gov/Learning/sealevel.html
Paul Zrimsek
wrote:
>The current warming is occuring 10 times faster than what was
>experienced during the ice age. How's that?
Meaningless comparison. In most types of time-series data, from global
temperatures to stock prices, short-term increases and decreases
nearly always proceed faster than long-term increases and decreases.
The mid-20th century cooling trend was likewise much faster than any
changes observed during the ice age (or rather, the last glacial; the
ice age is generally considered to be still in progress). But that's
almost certainly because we can't (yet) make paleoclimatological
observations with fine enough resolution to reveal warming or colling
trends of only a few decades' duration.
Paul Zrimsek pzri...@earthlink.net
------------------------------------------------------
Alarmism is dooming our society!
David Carrell
<39dd50d...@news.direct.ca>:
>
>Take the glass, fill it with water and then drop the ice cube in and
>see what happens.
>
But is our glass currently full? Before you answer, realize that in the
past there were forests and marshes on the antarctic continent. So at
least at sometime in the past much of the water now on the land wasn't
there. So where was all that water at?
Siobhan Medeiros
Zrimsek) wrote:
>On Fri, 06 Oct 2000 04:14:19 GMT, s...@direct.ca (Siobhan Medeiros)
>wrote:
>
>>>Basically, all that ice weighs millions of tonnes. When it is gone,
>>>the land "bounces" upward.
>
>>Which compounds the effects of melting since the continent displaces
>>more water. However, this effect is extremely slow, about 1 inch per
>>century so it's not really much of a consideration.
>
>"The most ubiquitous source of regional submergence/emergence at tide
>gauge sites is the Post Glacial Rebound (PGR) that continues from the
>last deglaciation. It is manifest over the entire planet, not just at
>locations ice-covered at the last glacial maximum. Vertical crustal
>movements due to PGR at most sites are of approximately the same
>magnitude as the global (eustatic) rise.
>
>"....As particular examples of the effect of PGR, consider Baltimore,
>Maryland, and Stockholm, Sweden. The long-term (order 100 years) sea
>level rise of approximately 3.5 mm per year at Baltimore (and
>everywhere else in the Chesapeake region) is about twice the global
>rate because of subsidence due to the peripheral bulge collapse from
>the last deglaciation [ Tushingham and Peltier, 1991]. In contrast,
>sea level at Stockholm falls by about 4 mm per year as land in the
>region continues to emerge in response to the disappearance of the ice
>there during the last deglaciation."
>
> http://earth.agu.org/revgeophys/dougla01/node3.html
>
Hmm, didn't know it could happen that fast. Thanks.
Incidentally, that seems fast enough to make it a serious
consideration...
Siobhan Medeiros
wrote:
>
>Siobhan Medeiros <s...@direct.ca> wrote in message
>news:39dd546b...@news.direct.ca...
>That's right and they can be attributed to other geological forces
>such as mountain building. There are also examples of rock
>formations underwater which were formed on dry land.
>
There are also cores taken from areas which were coastal at the time
which show proof positive of glacial retreat during ice ages. Not to
mention the existence of the land bridge over the Bering Strait during
the last ice age, which has also been proven.
Not that anyone would think this needs proving. It's simple common
sense. Dump a whole bunch of water into the ocean, and it's level
will rise.
>Don Wagner
Siobhan Medeiros
Zrimsek) wrote:
>On Fri, 06 Oct 2000 04:28:33 GMT, s...@direct.ca (Siobhan Medeiros)
>wrote:
>
>>>Well the best analogies are the simple ones which are also accurate.
>>>This one fits. People realize glasses don't overflow as the floating
>>>ice melts; neither will the planet. (Now land based ice is a different
>>>issue, but that is not applicable to nearly all of the artic ice.)\
>>
>>But it is to all of the Antartic Ice. Unless you can figure how to
>>only melt half the planet...
>
>"It is hypothesized that Antarctica will not contribute to sea-level
>rise because it is just too cold there. In fact, if the rise in
>global temperature increases global precipitation rates, Antarctica is
>expected to store water as snow and ice, rather than contribute
>meltwater to the oceans. However, as ocean temperatures increase, the
>ice shelves around Antarctica may melt. While this may not contribute
>to sea-level rise (the ice shelves are already buoyant on the water's
>surface), the loss of the shelves may make the continental ice sheet
>unstable. Most scientists agree, however, that the Antarctic ice
>sheet will not pose a problem within the next century. "
>
>http://gcmd.gsfc.nasa.gov/Learning/sealevel.html
>
If you'd bother to read the rest of the article, you'll see it confirm
that the sea level is indeed rising, so the meltwater is obviously
coming from somewhere. At no time does it mention any other possible
culprit than global warming.
Siobhan Medeiros
wrote:
>
>Siobhan Medeiros <s...@direct.ca> wrote in message
>news:39dd558b...@news.direct.ca...
>Is it faster than that experienced in the last 2 or 3 ice ages?
>
>What caused the warming the last time it happened?
>
>Don Wagner
>
>
Yes. Several times faster. Consider that the difference between now
and the ice age is about 5C in world mean temperature, and do the
math.
As to what caused it, the jury is still out, although most scientists
lean toward solar cycles.
Siobhan Medeiros
Zrimsek) wrote:
>On Fri, 06 Oct 2000 04:31:32 GMT, s...@direct.ca (Siobhan Medeiros)
>wrote:
>
>>The current warming is occuring 10 times faster than what was
>>experienced during the ice age. How's that?
>
>Meaningless comparison. In most types of time-series data, from global
>temperatures to stock prices, short-term increases and decreases
>nearly always proceed faster than long-term increases and decreases.
Yes they do. That's why they call one short-term and the other
long-term.
>The mid-20th century cooling trend was likewise much faster than any
>changes observed during the ice age (or rather, the last glacial; the
>ice age is generally considered to be still in progress). But that's
>almost certainly because we can't (yet) make paleoclimatological
>observations with fine enough resolution to reveal warming or colling
>trends of only a few decades' duration.
>
They're doing great work with Antartic ice cores nowadays. Check it
out.
>
>
>Paul Zrimsek pzri...@earthlink.net
>------------------------------------------------------
>Alarmism is dooming our society!
Excessive optimism will doom it far faster and surer.
"No, I don't have a instrumentation license. But don't worry about me
flying you around in that single-engine two-seater during pitch
darkness, we'll be just fine..." JFK Jr.
Siobhan Medeiros
wrote:
>On Wed, 04 Oct 2000 20:26:47 -0700, Bill Van <Bil...@canada.com>
>wrote:
>
>>In article <qp2ntso90cc9ik1vl...@4ax.com>, James Goneaux
>><jam...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>>
>>>It is amazing that although this is supposed to be the warmest century
>>>on record, not one scientist noticed until 1989...
>>>
>>
>>I'm no expert, but I can't imagine there are many centuries for which we
>>have accurate enough temperature statistics to use in that kind of
>>comparison. Judging how warm or cold the 12th century was, for instance,
>>would not be a very precise science, would it? What would it use, tree
>>growth rings?
>
>Those, and ice core rings, along with mud core rings. But you are
>right: as our accuracy improves, it means the older data is more
>suspect.
The Ice cores have been shown to be pretty damn accurate. Their
predicted temperatures have corresopnded pretty damn well with
recorded mean temperatures over the last century and a half. There's
no reason to assume they aren't just as accurate over the entire
millenium.
>
>>So the 20th would be the warmest century on record out of how many?
>>Three? Two?
>
>Unfortunately, the proponents of human caused global climate change
>don't ever tell us what came in #2.
>
>James Goneaux
Perhaps because there's no crisis there?
David Carrell
>>> through the 20th century, says Patrick Michaels, senior fellow in
>>> environmental sciences at the Cato Institute in Washington, D.C."
>>
>>> That's right, the head guy.
>>
>>He's not the head guy, silly. Here's a hint: when you try to
>>attack somebody's credibility, don't make a blatant error in
>>your first point.....
>>
>
>Well let's see. He's THE senior fellow...that sounds like the head
>guy to me, or at least one of them.
>
He is A senior fellow. There is no "THE" in the original quote. Senior
fellow is just a title and without an org chart you really don't know
the actual stature of the person. In the org where I work "Senior
whatever" (scientist, engineer, technician, etc) is at best a mid level
person. They rank behind Staff, Senior Staff, Consulting, etc.
Paul Zrimsek
wrote:
>If you'd bother to read the rest of the article, you'll see it confirm
>that the sea level is indeed rising, so the meltwater is obviously
>coming from somewhere.
If you'd bother to read the rest of my messages in this thread, you'll
see I've never denied this.
>At no time does it mention any other possible
>culprit than global warming.
Careful! "Global warming" has an equivocal meaning here: at the
moment, it means "observed past increases in temperature, from
whatever cause". Elsewhere in the thread, it means "the hypothesis
that significant anthropogenic warming is now, and will continue to
be, superimposed on whatever naturally occurring changes take place".
I don't know for certain whether you're conflating the two, but the
emphasis you lay upon past warming, much of which took place at a time
when there can have been no significant human influence, suugests that
you might be.
Paul Zrimsek pzri...@earthlink.net
---------------------------------------------------
The opponents called the WTO "undemocratic" because
they weren't in it. -- Bruce Ramsey
Paul Zrimsek
wrote:
>Hmm, didn't know it could happen that fast. Thanks.
You're welcome. Notice that I somehow managed to call this information
to your attention without calling you either a liar or an idiot-- a
point you may wish to ponder the next time you catch someone
expressing an opinion you know to be incorrect.
Paul Zrimsek pzri...@earthlink.net
-----------------------------------------------------------
"Donner, party of 30? Your table is ready."
"That's Donner, party of 15. Thanks, we've already eaten."
David Carrell
>On 3 Oct 2000 05:14:05 GMT, car...@netcommander.com (David Carrell)
>wrote:
>
>>nken...@seascape.ns.ca (nkennedy) wrote in
>><39D79435...@seascape.ns.ca>:
>>
>>>My! Now we have a REAL dopey to add to Bert and Ernie.
>>>Look prick, go back to the biginning of the discussion, maybe
>>>you'll see what a bunch of arseholes you FI "grads" are.
>>>
>>
>>Been here since the thread began, the original poster has been
>>incredibly absent since his post was clearly and severely thrashed.
>>And you have yet to even post single coherent argument. (Your one
>>measely attempt was more soundly defeated than even the original
>>poster's weak arguments, by myself and others.)
>>
>>DAC
>>--
>>speaking only for me
>>
>
>Speak of the devil. Here I am sorry I was late, I was busy having a
>life. Now please explain to me why my post has been thrashed by the
>argument of "well, if he had said this he would only have been half
>wrong."
Well glad to have you back.
Let's look at your 'scoffs' that were debunked.
1) You claimed Patrick Micheals was the "head guy". If you actually
went to the Institute's web page you would have found he is not.
2)In referring to the artic ice, there was a reference to the fact that
the ice (or at least nearly all of it) was floating. You scoffed at
that. The fact simply is that nearly all of the artic ice is floating
with no significant land mass support.
3)In discussing the actual melting, Michaels referred to planes found
63 down in the ice. You talk about how glaciers form and work. In
reality for those planes to be under 63 feet of ice, that much ice must
have built up. This is further supported by measurements taken by GW
researches working in Greenland. They did find that the ice on the SE
part of Greenland but they also found that on the western part of
Greenland the glacier ice has been growing thicker.
3) Micheals refers to the fact that most of the warming (at least in
the northern hemisphere) has occurred in to regions (which he named).
That is not only supported by the facts as reported in most (all?)
studies but agrees with the GW advocates models. Then again those
models are based on the same measurements and as such the models should
agree with the facts. You claimed this was not true (and that you had
been around awhile). Where is the data to support your claim. Certainly
not in the major scientific journals.
4) Micheals claimed that to date there has not been any significant
harm to Albertans. You went into some rant about needed beach wear in
Alberta in October. Well two comments about that. 1) It is now October;
have you seen many Albertans running around outside in swimsuits? (Not
counting any possible crazies doing so) 2) Even the the pro GW
advocate's models show that while much of the middle latitudes will
suffer in the future, the higher latitudes (e.g. Alberta) will actually
have an 'improved' climate for living there.
Others have also commented on your comments. Pointing out errors and
inconsistencies. Seems to me all of your 'charges' have been more than
adequately rebutted. Which is precisely what I pointed out.
DAC
--
speaking only for me
______________________________________________________________________
David Carrell
>
>But it is to all of the Antartic Ice. Unless you can figure how to
>only melt half the planet...
>
As others have already mentioned, antarctica is simply so cold that
even the largest high latitude temp increases won't significantly melt
the southern icecap. Also even if it were to melt, it would only put us
back to a previous condition. There is absolute evidence that long ago
(but since the the dinosaur reign) there were forest and marshes on the
antarctic continent.
>Rebutted? Did I miss something? The only rebuttal I've heard so far
>is "if he had said this he would only have been half wrong"
See my post else for just SOME of the rebuttal
David Carrell
>If you'd bother to read the rest of the article, you'll see it confirm
>that the sea level is indeed rising, so the meltwater is obviously
>coming from somewhere. At no time does it mention any other possible
>culprit than global warming.
>
Sea levels have risen and fallen many times through history. If in
happened in the past, long before any meaningful human actions, why
should we believe we are the cause now. And considering the rate at
which the seas are rising what is the danger?
And no it does not mention other causes (besides GW), and in fact the
planet is warming. The question is the cause. That is the point of
debate, particularly in light of the fact that we KNOW we are still
warming up from the most recent 'ice age'. The debate centers around
whether we are the cause or not. And to date the evidence to support
that the warming is caused by mans actions is tenuous at best.
David Carrell
>You mean the vast majority of the world's peoples aren't living in
>poverty, laying waste to the land around them to sustain themselves?
>
Compared to their level of poverty 100? 200? 300? years ago? It in not
a lack of resources causing poverty but the distribution of the
resources. Then again that distribution has not changed much in recent
history.
>Seems to me that the population bomb is still ticking.
Maybe, but if so it have a _REAL_ long fuse. Won't happen in mine or
your lifetime. Nor in our childrens.
David Carrell
>
>Take the glass, fill it with water and then drop the ice cube in and
>see what happens.
>
Of course it will splash over, but that only matters if the glass is
full. You have evidence that our glass is full?
David Carrell
>
>I don't suppose the worldwide crusade to Y2K proof practically every
>computer on the planet could have had something to do with the lack of
>problems?
Having been involved with some of that effort, I can tell you the more
we looked at systems the more we found that what few bugs were present
were very minor. So minor in fact that some we did not even bother to
fix until after the rollover.
Sure there were a few critical bugs (none if our systems), no where
near the level of problems that the 'experts' predicted.
David Carrell
<FglD5.37577$ib7.5...@news1.rdc1.nj.home.com>:
>Last time I checked, my 1991 VCR still worked, in spite of
>prediction by the "experts".
Hell my 1985 vintage VCR is still working. Not to mention my 1988
vintage PC.
Andrew J. Brehm
> > I don't suppose the worldwide crusade to Y2K proof practically every
> > computer on the planet could have had something to do with the lack of
> > problems?
>
> Every computer was not "proofed". Most of them weren't.
You realize of course that normal PCs were not considered to be any
cause for trouble and were thus not "proofed"? Company networks and
government institutions were checked.
> Firmware in
> VCR's, Autos, Cameras, and thousands of other devices were not touched.
What for? What could possibly happen with them in 2000?
> Could NOT be touched without a replacement of the entire control unit.
> Last time I checked, my 1991 VCR still worked, in spite of prediction by the
> "experts".
I am not aware of any "expert" who predicted that VCRs would not work
after 2000.
> These things never keep the chicken littles from moving on to the next
> catastrophe, though. Too bad they're never held accountable for the trouble
> they cause. Hey, ATTENTION TRIAL LAWYERS... JOB OPPORTUNITY.
They are never held accountable because people like you seem to
misunderstand nearly everything they say, I might even assume.
--
Fan of Woody Allen
PowerPC User
Supporter of Pepperoni Pizza
David Carrell
> Dump a whole bunch of water into the ocean, and it's level
>will rise
Depends on where you get the water to begin with.
Siobhan Medeiros
wrote:
>s...@direct.ca (Siobhan Medeiros) wrote in
><39dd50d...@news.direct.ca>:
>
>>
>>Take the glass, fill it with water and then drop the ice cube in and
>>see what happens.
>>
>
>But is our glass currently full? Before you answer, realize that in the
>past there were forests and marshes on the antarctic continent. So at
>least at sometime in the past much of the water now on the land wasn't
>there. So where was all that water at?
>
>DAC
>--
In the ocean. And in regards to your first question, considering
that something like 1/2 of the human population lives on or near
coastal areas, I'd say it's full enough.
>speaking only for me
>
>______________________________________________________________________
>Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Still Only $9.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
> With Servers In California, Texas And Virginia - The Worlds Uncensored News Source
>
No man is an island.
Siobhan Medeiros
wrote:
>s...@direct.ca (Siobhan Medeiros) wrote in
><39deb1ab...@news.direct.ca>:
>
>> Dump a whole bunch of water into the ocean, and it's level
>>will rise
>
>Depends on where you get the water to begin with.
>
No it doesn't.
Siobhan Medeiros
Zrimsek) wrote:
>On Sat, 07 Oct 2000 05:26:49 GMT, s...@direct.ca (Siobhan Medeiros)
>wrote:
>
>>If you'd bother to read the rest of the article, you'll see it confirm
>>that the sea level is indeed rising, so the meltwater is obviously
>>coming from somewhere.
>
>If you'd bother to read the rest of my messages in this thread, you'll
>see I've never denied this.
>
>>At no time does it mention any other possible
>>culprit than global warming.
>
>Careful! "Global warming" has an equivocal meaning here: at the
>moment, it means "observed past increases in temperature, from
>whatever cause". Elsewhere in the thread, it means "the hypothesis
>that significant anthropogenic warming is now, and will continue to
>be, superimposed on whatever naturally occurring changes take place".
>I don't know for certain whether you're conflating the two, but the
>emphasis you lay upon past warming, much of which took place at a time
>when there can have been no significant human influence, suugests that
>you might be.
>
The amount of warming in recent years -well within the sphere of human
influence - is vastly accelerated over that which was probably
experienced at the end of the last ice age.
Siobhan Medeiros
wrote:
>s...@direct.ca (Siobhan Medeiros) wrote in
Yes it would. The problem is that we haven't built our civilization
around the "previous condition". 1/2 of the world's people live near
or on a coastal areas. If you want chaos, imagine relocating 3
billion people.
Nor is the current fauna built upon the "previous condition".
According to the Globe&Mail, Canada may lose up to 43% of it's
wildlife habitats in the next century. That could very well bring on
a mass extinction.
Siobhan Medeiros
wrote:
Never did I deny that the arctic ice was floating. I merely pointed
out that the Antartic, Greenland, and Siberian ice sheets were not,
and together these make up the vast majority of all ice on the planet.
>3)In discussing the actual melting, Michaels referred to planes found
>63 down in the ice. You talk about how glaciers form and work. In
>reality for those planes to be under 63 feet of ice, that much ice must
>have built up. This is further supported by measurements taken by GW
>researches working in Greenland. They did find that the ice on the SE
>part of Greenland but they also found that on the western part of
>Greenland the glacier ice has been growing thicker.
Glaciers are built up by the accumulation of ice and snow on one end.
Even if the glacier were shrinking, all the melting would be taking
place at the warmer edges, while accumulation would continue at the
cold center areas (and at the edges as well, since shrinkage merely
means that the rate of melting exceeds the rate of accumulation). In
other words, the presence of those planes under the ice proves
absolutely nothing and is a blatant attempt by the author to deceive
the reader.
And yes, it is possible that the glaciers are thickening in some
places, and it is also true that global warming will cause some areas
to get COLDER. The effect is not uniform, no one has ever said it
was. What's important is the OVERALL effect.
>
>3) Micheals refers to the fact that most of the warming (at least in
>the northern hemisphere) has occurred in to regions (which he named).
>That is not only supported by the facts as reported in most (all?)
>studies but agrees with the GW advocates models. Then again those
>models are based on the same measurements and as such the models should
>agree with the facts. You claimed this was not true (and that you had
>been around awhile). Where is the data to support your claim. Certainly
>not in the major scientific journals.
Upcoming. But even if this were true, then it would make the
situation even more serious since the warming is taking place where
many of the landbound glaciers are located!
>
>4) Micheals claimed that to date there has not been any significant
>harm to Albertans. You went into some rant about needed beach wear in
>Alberta in October. Well two comments about that. 1) It is now October;
>have you seen many Albertans running around outside in swimsuits? (Not
>counting any possible crazies doing so) 2) Even the the pro GW
>advocate's models show that while much of the middle latitudes will
>suffer in the future, the higher latitudes (e.g. Alberta) will actually
>have an 'improved' climate for living there.
No, I said that Michaels was trying to lull his readers with visions
of global warming producing a "Club Med" climate for Albertans. Which
you are doing right now, incidentally.
>
>Others have also commented on your comments. Pointing out errors and
>inconsistencies. Seems to me all of your 'charges' have been more than
>adequately rebutted. Which is precisely what I pointed out.
Not even close.
Siobhan Medeiros
wrote:
>s...@direct.ca (Siobhan Medeiros) wrote in
><39dd59b7...@news.direct.ca>:
>
>>You mean the vast majority of the world's peoples aren't living in
>>poverty, laying waste to the land around them to sustain themselves?
>>
>Compared to their level of poverty 100? 200? 300? years ago? It in not
>a lack of resources causing poverty but the distribution of the
>resources. Then again that distribution has not changed much in recent
>history.
>
>>Seems to me that the population bomb is still ticking.
>
>Maybe, but if so it have a _REAL_ long fuse. Won't happen in mine or
>your lifetime. Nor in our childrens.
>
Guess again. The doubling time of the world's population is 25 years.
Meaning I can probably expect it to double twice more in my lifetime.
That puts it at 24 billion - well above the 18 billion the UN
estimates the planet can support.
Paul Zrimsek
wrote:
>Guess again. The doubling time of the world's population is 25 years.
>Meaning I can probably expect it to double twice more in my lifetime.
>That puts it at 24 billion - well above the 18 billion the UN
>estimates the planet can support.
The world's population doesn't have a doubling time, because the
world's population isn't increasing geometrically. Since about a
decade ago, it hasn't even been increasing linearly.
Paul Zrimsek
wrote:
>The problem is that we haven't built our civilization
>around the "previous condition". 1/2 of the world's people live near
>or on a coastal areas. If you want chaos, imagine relocating 3
>billion people.
Why on earth should we imagine that? The UN IPCC's current estimate
for sea level rise over the next century, itself controversial, is 50
centimeters. I can assure you that 3 billion people do not live that
close to existing sea level.