Political Crossfire Forums

[The Impeacher]

bob.appleyard wrote: emt3197 wrote: For example, many scientists claim that the polar ice caps are melting which is causing sea levels to rise worldwide. However, a lot of recent data shows that the ice caps are thickening, and there has been no rise in sea levels.

Actually, the polar ice cap has been in steady decline since the mid 70s. Anyone with even a modicum of scientific education would know that floating ice does not affect the water level, though, so I have the suspicion you're plucking stuff out of the air here.

The things which will affect water levels are things like the Greenland glaciers. They're falling into the sea faster than ever, and the rate at which they're doing so is increasing.

GAH!!

learn the diff between "floating ice," and polar ice sheets PLEASE!

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/03/060308211836.htm



thus, the fact that greenlands glaciers may have more of an impact on water levels means that the total of snow/ice on ALL landmasses [not just at the poles] is, in fact, the real kicker.

personally, i think as salinity decreases in the oceans, polar ice will increase as i do believe fresh[er]water would be more prone to evaporation, both heat gain and loss, and thus lead to snow/ice back on land - if there is no greenhouse effect to thwart the cycles of water accumulating/freezing on land..

nastier summer hurricaines AND colder winters. but those are only the the range values, its the average that still may be problematic as they are a sign of a levelling out of the extremes.

thickening mainland ice at the poles, and nasty hurricaine and cyclones suggests to me that it may be a natural compensating effect.

i dunno, just thinking out loud....

[bob.appleyard]

Okay, so I forgot about Antarctica. Sorry.

[Canadian-kid]

GTTofAK wrote: Yes there is a great deal of hypocrisy in the global warming debate. The same people who tell you that you cannot point to this years long cold winter as evidence against global warming are the same ones who will point to one hurricane as support for global warming.

cold winter? we had record highs in the Atlantic provinces and record lows for snowstorms.

[SonikBaby]

jasonireland wrote: i have said it before and i will say it again "people will believe whatever is in their interest to believe"

so it does not matter what graphs you have, what scientific study is done, what book you read, if it does not suit you, you will choose to disregard it.

the concept of global warming does not suit the ideals and on-going exploitation of the capitalist agenda. it does not suit right wing philosophy to pay any attention to environmentalists.

the Belief that global warming is a threat, that it is "mother natures backlash" suits people who believe "our time on earth is to serve it as it serves us" and not plunder natural resources and animals for own benefit, as if mankind had any right to do so.afterall, civilisation is almost an accident................

If you know anything about science or the history of the universe( a good start is read "A short history of nearly everything" by Bill Bryson) you will have read about how it was a completely against all odds that any life ever started on this planet. It was almost a mistake, the odds were so unbelievably stacked against the conditions that were needed for life to begin.Or for the Earth to be the right distance from the sun(1% further or 5 % nearer would of bred no life) If you can begin to comprehend this you will understand how fragile the Earth is and how unnatural mankinds "progress" into civilisation was. You could even consider the "success " of human beings as mistake, we just happened to rise above the animals. This is my belief and therefore i regard global warming as the inevitable result of mankinds ignorance of the fragility of nature and our planet, and the completely arrogant attitude of our species in regard to relationship with the planet. And if global warming is not a reality, something will take its place because we are just a blip in history that has to be removed or corrected.

These are my beliefs there is no point arguing with me or there is no point pushing the right - wing philosophy, no objective will be attained, not in this thread or anywhere else.

therefore there is no debate.it depends on how you view your relationship with the planet, and the future of mankind. end of discussion


:clap: :tu: :clap:

VERY well said! That is exactly how I feel.

I will pick up that book also.. Sounds very interesting.

[Citizendave]

SonikBaby-

I don't share your enthusiasm for jasonireland's position.

jasonireland wrote: i have said it before and i will say it again "people will believe whatever is in their interest to believe"...... it does not suit right wing philosophy to pay any attention to environmentalists.



Are you both saying that nobody's opinon has ever evolved on the issue of GW? As I mention on the previous page, the major oil companies stopped funding the GCC in 2002 and started voluntarily keeping track of their CO2 output. These actions open the door to regulation.

jasonireland wrote: ....it was a completely against all odds that any life ever started on this planet. It was almost a mistake, the odds were so unbelievably stacked against the conditions that were needed for life to begin

I don't take a fundamentalist position that God created Adam in His own image, but many of the people who aren't worried about GW certainly do. Of course, if you believe in God to that extent, then the odds weren't stacked against man in the least, and our future has already been written.

jasonireland wrote: ....therefore there is no debate.it depends on how you view ......

An odd satement to make at a debate forum. If everyon'es opinion is fixed, rooted and predetermined, I don't understand why you spend time at this web site?

[Citizendave]

Free Thinkr -

Here is a summary of unanswered points which I'm still curious about. Of course, if you'd prefer to go back and answer each of my points from the previous page, I'll understand. After all, I did accuse you lying.

Quote:
1) Who is it that you imagine is going to come along with some hard science to refute the so called "doomsday predictions" associated with GW?

Free Thinkr wrote:
.... your entire case is based on "argument from authority" and "argumentum ad populum" fallacies. The fact that you keep posting articles on global warming rather than working with actual reasoning is a result of that fact.


2) To what degree, according to you then, should the conclusions of the experts be taken into account?

3) Also, I'm just curious, I made you aware of the public positions which major corporations are taking on GW. Was that new information to you?

4) You acknowledge that global temperatures are rising, but really, do you trust that information at all? Since you want to put aside the science and engage in "working with actual reasoning" why do you even allow that point?

5) You emphasize working with your own reasoning, and yet you think it is proper to go back to the mid 1970's and cite a research error. You think it is logically valid to push aside what science has learned in the last 30 years about world climate. Is that really good logic?


I'm curious to see how you respond.