I have seen two different commercials on TV now claiming the polar bears are all going to die and their numbers are dwindling because the ice is melting. One of these is the WWF ( world wildlife foundation) who's own data says that out of the 25 distinct groups one is declining slightly, one is growing slightly and the rest are flat. Polar bear specialists will tell you that they will in fact thrive in a warmer climate. So now they have resorted to out and out lies and emotional pandering based on lies. This is pathetic and I feel sorry for the ignorant that don't know these ads are flat out lies. The global warming BS is just to much.
IP: Logged
07:09 PM
PFF
System Bot
Wichita Member
Posts: 20685 From: Wichita, Kansas Registered: Jun 2002
They've been saying that for years. It's just scare tactics.
Somebody I heard said it best about the Climate Change Fear crowd. They are basically anti-American and anti-capitalist bunch of dunces. And they are clinging on to the environmentalist movement because their constituency, for which they say they are tying to serve and protect, cannot speak back. Such as the Spotted Owl, the Rain Forest and etc. So they can say anything about it.
IP: Logged
07:22 PM
OKflyboy Member
Posts: 6607 From: Not too far from Mexico Registered: Nov 2004
I rented "The Golden Compass" and there was a PSA about polar bears before the movie. Basically pictures of Polar Bears with Lyra (the main character) speaking over it saying "In my world, Polar Bears wear Armor and fight in Armies, in your world, Polar bears are dying..." I, figuratively laughed my ass off...
thought the planet had actually cooled last year. I do not believe in the green house gas crap! but it would be nice if it was true because it could save us from the ice age we will be entering, well that is what "they" used to preach when I was a kid, hell I think that was the mantra into the 80's.
IP: Logged
01:01 AM
DtheC Member
Posts: 3395 From: Newton Iowa, USA Registered: Sep 2005
Originally posted by Wichita: They've been saying that for years. It's just scare tactics. Somebody I heard said it best about the Climate Change Fear crowd. They are basically anti-American and anti-capitalist bunch of dunces. And they are clinging on to the environmentalist movement because their constituency, for which they say they are tying to serve and protect, cannot speak back. Such as the Spotted Owl, the Rain Forest and etc. So they can say anything about it.
Son, it's sad I agree with you soo many times. But....... I'm a Soil & Water Conservation District Commissioner (up for re-election 1 of 3 out of 5, this year). Don' denegrate what some of us are trying to do. Look around your back yard? Mteaphoricaly speaking. I could prolly find some ways you could improve things, can't you? Paradigm shifts are something diffrent. Eco terrorists are 1 thing, GW tennants are worse. Baby steps, don't hurt, Nuff said.?
------------------ Ol' Paint, 88 Base coupe auto. Turning white on top, like owner. Leaks a little, like owner. Doesn't smoke....... OK, we're trying to quit.
IP: Logged
01:48 AM
fierobear Member
Posts: 27083 From: Safe in the Carolinas Registered: Aug 2000
Oh, you boys best do some non biased research, real soon. But, as I said elsewhere, you will be OK in your lifetime, but if you live on the coast, any coast, don't leave the house to your children without expensive SCUBA gear. Don't make this a political issue, it's not.
Oh, you boys best do some non biased research, real soon. But, as I said elsewhere, you will be OK in your lifetime, but if you live on the coast, any coast, don't leave the house to your children without expensive SCUBA gear. Don't make this a political issue, it's not.
Speaking of that non-biased research care to provide some to back up that dishonest over exaggeration about how high the water will rise?
[This message has been edited by Phranc (edited 08-01-2008).]
IP: Logged
04:48 PM
darkhorizon Member
Posts: 12279 From: Flint Michigan Registered: Jan 2006
Oh, you boys best do some non biased research, real soon. But, as I said elsewhere, you will be OK in your lifetime, but if you live on the coast, any coast, don't leave the house to your children without expensive SCUBA gear. Don't make this a political issue, it's not.
My personal belief is that we are not just polluting the earth with CO2 gasses, we are polluting the entire solar system to the point where we are actually effecting the sun. The problem is much worse that we could ever have imagined. We need to take dramatic measures to stop the production of all green house gasses immediately. This includes the holding in of all farts, even those of cows.
Edit: Smiley added
[This message has been edited by RACE (edited 08-02-2008).]
IP: Logged
10:47 AM
cliffw Member
Posts: 36745 From: Bandera, Texas, USA Registered: Jun 2003
Originally posted by RACE: My personal belief is that we are not just polluting the earth with CO2 gasses, we are polluting the entire solar system to the point where we are actually effecting the sun. The problem is much worse that we could ever have imagined. We need to take dramatic measures to stop the production of all green house gasses immediately. This includes the holding in of all farts, even those of cows.
Um, not quite. We are holding in all farts, with gravity. How can we be affecting the Sun ?
IP: Logged
12:07 PM
RACE Member
Posts: 4842 From: Des Moines IA Registered: Dec 2002
My personal belief is that we are not just polluting the earth with CO2 gasses, we are polluting the entire solar system to the point where we are actually effecting the sun. The problem is much worse that we could ever have imagined. We need to take dramatic measures to stop the production of all green house gasses immediately. This includes the holding in of all farts, even those of cows.
Edit: Smiley added
Now now, we all know that big burning thing in the sky has nothing to do with heat.
IP: Logged
03:04 PM
Pyrthian Member
Posts: 29569 From: Detroit, MI Registered: Jul 2002
Originally posted by Phranc: Speaking of that non-biased research care to provide some to back up that dishonest over exaggeration about how high the water will rise?
well, last year we did work out the math which does show that greenland contains enough ice, that if melted would in fact add just under 20 foot to the sea level. and - most do agree that global warming is in fact happening - but - it is a natural occurance - since it has happened at least 5 times in the past. glaciers have melted. there is much melting going on in antartica. so, if ya like - look at the volume of ice on greenland. and next the surface area of the oceans. quick math = sea level rise from JUST the ice of greenland. if ya like - do a search for the previous thread. we even got fancy and added in the slope of the shoreline to accomandate the growing surface area as the sea level rose. really - just under 20 feet. but, this also assumes the volume of ice on greenland is accurate. and - with radar - I dont see why it would not be. ice depth on ground is easily determined. by just looking - it sure dont seem it - but once you realize how thick a MILE of ice is, and how large greenland is. a mile is 5360 feet. thats ALOT of water. but - its all simple math.
well, last year we did work out the math which does show that greenland contains enough ice, that if melted would in fact add just under 20 foot to the sea level. and - most do agree that global warming is in fact happening - but - it is a natural occurance - since it has happened at least 5 times in the past. glaciers have melted. there is much melting going on in antartica. so, if ya like - look at the volume of ice on greenland. and next the surface area of the oceans. quick math = sea level rise from JUST the ice of greenland. if ya like - do a search for the previous thread. we even got fancy and added in the slope of the shoreline to accomandate the growing surface area as the sea level rose. really - just under 20 feet. but, this also assumes the volume of ice on greenland is accurate. and - with radar - I dont see why it would not be. ice depth on ground is easily determined. by just looking - it sure dont seem it - but once you realize how thick a MILE of ice is, and how large greenland is. a mile is 5360 feet. thats ALOT of water. but - its all simple math.
In its recent Fourth Assessment Report, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) estimated that sea levels will rise between 0.26 and 0.59 meters (0.85 to 1.94 feet) in the high warming scenario and between 0.21 and 0.48 meters (0.69 to 1.57 feet) in the mean warming scenario by the decade from 2090-2099.
That's not 20 feet. Thats 2 feet in 100 years. If the earth keeps warming. And its not. And its less then projected in the ICPP third report w.ich still wasn't 20 feet.
quote
Sea level rise projections remain an area of substantial uncertainty. With all the attention the issue rightly receives, there likely will be many more important studies on the possibility of accelerated sea level rise resulting from dynamic ice sheet flows
For the time being, however, and while scientists move to address lingering uncertainties, journalists should resist any temptation to report the most dire consequences as settled science.
I'm glad you did the math but I will take the word of real scientists.
IP: Logged
05:02 PM
Pyrthian Member
Posts: 29569 From: Detroit, MI Registered: Jul 2002
just the volume of ice vs surface area of the oceans. simple math. the water is available. noone knows if the ice will fully melt or not. I dont think it will either. take who ever you likes word on that - ok by me. just stating the potential. whether it is achieved or not - dont care.
IP: Logged
05:26 PM
fierobear Member
Posts: 27083 From: Safe in the Carolinas Registered: Aug 2000
I have other stuff on Antarctica, and on how the melting is confined to something like 1% of the area, and only on the Antarctic peninsula.
quote
so, if ya like - look at the volume of ice on greenland. and next the surface area of the oceans. quick math = sea level rise from JUST the ice of greenland.
Ice cores show previous warming that was greater than current, and the ice did not melt completely.
Histograms from the GRIP reconstruction (Fig. 3) show that temperatures at the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM) were 23 6 2 K colder than at present (21). The temperatures at this time, 25 ka, reflect the cold temperatures seen on the measured temperature profile at a depth of 1200 to 2000 m. Alternative reconstructions of the ice thickness and accumulation rates all reproduce LGM temperatures within 2 K (9, 10, 22, 23). The cold Younger Dryas and the warm Bølling/Allerød periods (24) are not resolved in the inverse reconstruction. The temperature signals of these periods have been obliterated by thermal diffusion because of their short duration (25). After the termination of the glacial period, temperatures in our record increase steadily, reaching a period 2.5 K warmer than present during what is referred to as the Climatic Optimum (CO), at 8 to 5 ka. Following the CO, temperatures cool to a minimum of 0.5 K colder than the present at around 2 ka. The record implies that the medieval period around 1000 A.D. was 1 K warmer than present in Greenland. Two cold periods, at 1550 and 1850 A.D., are observed during the Little Ice Age (LIA) with temperatures 0.5 and 0.7 K below the present. After the LIA, temperatures reach a maximum around 1930 A.D.; temperatures have decreased during the last decades (26). The climate history for the most recent times is in agreement with direct measurements in the Arctic regions (27). The climate history for the last 500 years agrees with the general understanding of the climate in the Arctic region (28) and can be used to verify the temperature amplitudes. The results show that the temperatures in general have decreased since the CO and that no warming in Greenland is observed in the most recent decades. As seen in Fig. 3, resolution decreases back
According to the data in the graph, it was warmer - MUCH warmer in Greenland in the past. So why didn't all the ice melt then? Why would we believe it will melt NOW?
Some of the IPCC data is solid. The concocted conclusion is not.
If you really dig into this, you'll find the following about the IPCC...
1. There are scientists - quite a few, in fact - who are part of the so called "consensus" who do NOT agree with the final conclusion that "man is causing warming, period." 2. These scientists will tell you that the IPCC does not do any research or measuring of climate. The assimilate papers from climate scientists and have reviewers publish a "summary for policymakers". In many cases, the people who wrote those papers are reviewing their own work. So much for "peer review". The fox is guarding the henhouse. 3. The IPCC cherrypicks info and data that supports their conclusion, and rejects data that refutes their conclusion. 4. The process is about politics, not science.
Here are some links regarding the flawed IPCC process:
IPCC's assessment of CO2 affect is wrong. Video titled Analysing the IPCC`s climate change models Description: "Bill Kininmonth, the head of Australia`s National Climate Centre from 86 - 98 looks at the climate change issue and the IPCC`s projections to see if they are logical or not"
IP: Logged
10:36 PM
RACE Member
Posts: 4842 From: Des Moines IA Registered: Dec 2002
My personal belief is that we are not just polluting the earth with CO2 gasses, we are polluting the entire solar system to the point where we are actually effecting the sun.
Careful. With talk like that someone might just hand you a Nobel Prize.
IP: Logged
01:08 AM
PFF
System Bot
Wichita Member
Posts: 20685 From: Wichita, Kansas Registered: Jun 2002
Son, it's sad I agree with you soo many times. But....... I'm a Soil & Water Conservation District Commissioner (up for re-election 1 of 3 out of 5, this year). Don' denegrate what some of us are trying to do. Look around your back yard? Mteaphoricaly speaking. I could prolly find some ways you could improve things, can't you? Paradigm shifts are something diffrent. Eco terrorists are 1 thing, GW tennants are worse. Baby steps, don't hurt, Nuff said.?
I'm with you there. There isn't nothing wrong with reducing pollution, cleaning the environment, recycling, conserving, creating and demanding better efficiencies in our energy use, renewable resources, protected wildlife and parks and the whole bit.
We should and must do things like that so our environment doesn't become a filth pile. But many environmentalist are looking for wealth transfer schemes, suing corporations, stopping development, prying for a reduction in life style and standard of living...all, which are not good solutions to preserving the environment questions.
IP: Logged
01:37 AM
Fieromaniac Member
Posts: 980 From: Hamburg, Germany Registered: Nov 2006
My personal belief is that we are not just polluting the earth with CO2 gasses, we are polluting the entire solar system to the point where we are actually effecting the sun. The problem is much worse that we could ever have imagined. We need to take dramatic measures to stop the production of all green house gasses immediately. This includes the holding in of all farts, even those of cows.
Edit: Smiley added
hey but you wouldnt buy new cars or new electrical things because of a SUN MADE warming dont you so its better for the economy if the dumb ppl think its all homegrown humanmade warming
Well Mars seems to be warming too. So it is actually you damn Americans fault after all. Those landers on Mars have put out so much pollution it is affecting Mars too. Can't leave well enough alone can ya's
IP: Logged
04:40 AM
lurker Member
Posts: 12353 From: salisbury nc usa Registered: Feb 2002
Well Mars seems to be warming too. So it is actually you damn Americans fault after all. Those landers on Mars have put out so much pollution it is affecting Mars too. Can't leave well enough alone can ya's
we could, but we wont, and after we melt all that ice we'll have ocean front property on mars. you'll get carbon credits for polluting, helping to prevent all the heat from escaping into space.
IP: Logged
07:19 AM
Pyrthian Member
Posts: 29569 From: Detroit, MI Registered: Jul 2002
I have other stuff on Antarctica, and on how the melting is confined to something like 1% of the area, and only on the Antarctic peninsula
...
Ice cores show previous warming that was greater than current, and the ice did not melt completely. .....
I dont disagree at all - just mentioned there is melting - and yes - I was speaking specificly of that pennisula. other areas areas are in fact still growing.
and - again - yes - I was just mentioning the volume of frozen water is in fact enough to raise the sea level almost 20 feet - if fully melted.
and, I will add the north west canadien glaciers have lost MUCH volume. the mighty glacier park is now more pretty blue lake park. them freshly formed melted ice lakes are awesomely clear blue lakes. and it is at the point new maps will need to be made to include them.
IP: Logged
10:02 AM
fierobear Member
Posts: 27083 From: Safe in the Carolinas Registered: Aug 2000
Well Mars seems to be warming too. So it is actually you damn Americans fault after all. Those landers on Mars have put out so much pollution it is affecting Mars too. Can't leave well enough alone can ya's
Soon the whole galaxy will be ruined. Can the rest of the universe be far behind?
.
Sting_Photo.jpg)
The problem is much worse that we could ever have imagined. We need to take dramatic measures to stop the production of all green house gasses immediately. This includes the holding in of all farts, even those of cows.
