Global warming and the end

[Ludicrus]

Yep...but that falsehood made a lot of money for a lot of people...Ask Al Gore.

Not that some didn't really believe it though.

Yeah, he made a LOT of money!

Snake oil peddlers usually do.

 

[Ludicrus]

"Stop!! Are you sure you're not just worshipping the free market instead? Are you sure you're not just failing to love your neighbour in the face of something that threatens the global poor SO BADLY that masses of us rich, self-indulgent Westerners are just reacting with childish denial of the facts?


So go ahead and applaud yourself. As far as I'm concerned, you've just joined this guy. And the Republican Koch-brothers fuelled Denialosphere has joined you.

Nope, I don't worship anybody but God Almighty.
And nope, I'm not applauding myself.

And nope, I wouldn't listen to the New Age diabtribe that Al Gore and all of those "climate change gurus" spew for anything in the world and I'm not interested in anything they or their followers have to say.

I'm totally surprised to see anybody that professes to be a Christian to embrace this bag of lies.

"New Age"=the ability to become "as little gods" and undo the works of God Almighty.....'if we can just come together and get enough people behind it, and make enough laws to support it, and throw enough money behind it, and speak it into existence long enough...THEN, THEN, we'll show all of those Christians and Jews to be wrong, WE CAN CHANGE OUR DESTINY!!!!"

That's the doctrine you've embraced. YOU know it by wrote. You'll defend it to your death probably and attack any Christian that doesn't go along with it.

The whole purpose of the "climate change theory" is to turn people to worship MOTHER EARTH and the Earth. That's why they took away our national day of prayer and substituted it for Earth Day.

And it is a Religious day. One that was supposed to be non-offensive to all people.

Well I take offense at our government supporting and working for the goddess Gaia. That is if they haven't changed her name again to keep it from coming up in the search results on google.

I won't make sacrifices to any god or any religion.

Everything the environmentalists have done to "protect" the environment has actually destroyed it. So, go figure, Satan comes to steal, kill and destroy and he's the FATHER OF LIES.

 

[eclipsenow]

Nope, I don't worship anybody but God Almighty.
And nope, I'm not applauding myself.

And nope, I wouldn't listen to the New Age diabtribe that Al Gore and all of those "climate change gurus" spew for anything in the world and I'm not interested in anything they or their followers have to say.

I'm totally surprised to see anybody that professes to be a Christian to embrace this bag of lies.

"New Age"=the ability to become "as little gods" and undo the works of God Almighty.....'if we can just come together and get enough people behind it, and make enough laws to support it, and throw enough money behind it, and speak it into existence long enough...THEN, THEN, we'll show all of those Christians and Jews to be wrong, WE CAN CHANGE OUR DESTINY!!!!"

What a sad post: it's at the same level as kids in the school-yard taunting 'liar liar pants on fire!', but less honest. It's dressed up as spiritual gobbledegook instead.

That's the doctrine you've embraced. YOU know it by wrote. You'll defend it to your death probably and attack any Christian that doesn't go along with it.

Sorry, but my doctrine is Reformed Anglican, Calvinistic, Theistic Evolution with a framework understanding of early Genesis, and based on scripture. My social concerns are shaped by a Christian ethic of loving our neighbours, even the poor ones over in Africa and Southern America, and by science. Your world-view seems shaped more by Koch brothers conspiracy theories than anything in the real world.

The whole purpose of the "climate change theory" is to turn people to worship MOTHER EARTH and the Earth. That's why they took away our national day of prayer and substituted it for Earth Day.

Absolutely ridiculous rubbish: and you're again attacking my motives and basically slandering me without providing any evidence. The reality is there are loads of concerned Christians in climate science. The previous head of the IPCC, Sir John Haughton, is an evangelical Christian as is Bill McKibben, one of the greatest climate campaigners and science writers for a lay audience. Sure there might be a few nutters that use global warming to fit into some crazy earth-worship world-view, but you get nutters in Christianity as well. Some pervert the Christian bible into the Klu Klux Klan. By your logical Christianity would be bunk just because of the minority nutters.

And it is a Religious day. One that was supposed to be non-offensive to all people.

What on earth are you talking about now?

Well I take offense at our government supporting and working for the goddess Gaia. That is if they haven't changed her name again to keep it from coming up in the search results on google.

You go have a good rant at those Satanic bushes there, and the other bushes over there, oh, and don't forget the reds under the bed. This is all run by Communists as well don't forget!

I won't make sacrifices to any god or any religion.

Neither will I, but, in pointing that out, I'm just not being sporting am I? I mean, if I really wanted to make your day I'd just admit to being a pagan and burning babies in my backyard.

Everything the environmentalists have done to "protect" the environment has actually destroyed it. So, go figure, Satan comes to steal, kill and destroy and he's the FATHER OF LIES.

Sorry, but environmentalists established one of America's better ideas, the National Parks. They've also improved our health, saved species, and broadened our understanding of God's amazing creativity in nature. They've given us wonderful parks in our cities, saved amazing wetlands, and tried to guarantee stable fisheries and environments to support the project of human civilisation. Your sad rant above seems ignorant of some of the better things that America has achieved. But, you're not alone. Sadly. The Koch-brothers have hit well above their means by funding so called 'think tanks' in churches, in elderly groups, in women's groups, and across society. Your thinking comes directly from big coal, which destroys mountain tops, kills tens of thousands of Americans through lung cancers and other respiratory complications a year, and ultimate is unnecessary and will one day run out. I'm sorry for you and sorry about how your country seems full of Denialist's that just basically hate science.

 

[Biblewriter]

Dialing Back the Alarm on Climate Change - WSJ.com

Of course, I know, the Wall Street Journal is just another "denialist" source.;-)

 

[eclipsenow]

Dialing Back the Alarm on Climate Change - WSJ.com

Of course, I know, the Wall Street Journal is just another "denialist" source.;-)

Just curious, but if you already know it's a Denialist source, why do you quote it? Why not look for the truth? You know, real science. I'm just asking. Besides, you never dealt with the peer-reviewed answer about the Arctic ice, did you? How like a Denialist. Just throw some mud and run when the stuff doesn't stick. Yep, Arctic ice regrows over winter. Amazing. Truly astounding. As in, wow. How shocking. It's almost as if you're pretending climate scientists don't know this? But tell us all how much multi-year thick ice there is? Tell us all how much seasonal ice has been melting over the last decade? You know, that ice that's only been around for one season? Nah, you wouldn't admit any of this. You're like a kid hiding under the blankets to make the boogy man go away.

 

[Biblewriter]

Just curious, but if you already know it's a Denialist source, why do you quote it? Why not look for the truth? You know, real science. I'm just asking. Besides, you never dealt with the peer-reviewed answer about the Arctic ice, did you? How like a Denialist. Just throw some mud and run when the stuff doesn't stick. Yep, Arctic ice regrows over winter. Amazing. Truly astounding. As in, wow. How shocking. It's almost as if you're pretending climate scientists don't know this? But tell us all how much multi-year thick ice there is? Tell us all how much seasonal ice has been melting over the last decade? You know, that ice that's only been around for one season? Nah, you wouldn't admit any of this. You're like a kid hiding under the blankets to make the boogy man go away.

The truth is, that the Wall Street Journal is NOT a "denialist" source. I was just making fun of the fact that you make that accusation every time I link to another news article. As for your "peer reviewed" answer, I am wholly unconvinced by peer review, when it is done by climate alarmists confirming the tall tales of other climate alarmists.

 

[eclipsenow]

The truth is, that the Wall Street Journal is NOT a "denialist" source. I was just making fun of the fact that you make that accusation every time I link to another news article. As for your "peer reviewed" answer, I am wholly unconvinced by peer review, when it is done by climate alarmists confirming the tall tales of other climate alarmists.

Oh I know you don't believe peer-reviewed science like evolution or climate science. You also don't 'believe in' answering questions do you? How's that multi-year thickness going? How much is there? At this stage you've not only failed High School science, but English comprehension as well.

PS: The WSJ is well known as one of the last papers foolish enough to act as a bastion of Denialism.

"The Wall Street Journal’s editorial board has long been understood to be not only antagonistic to the facts of climate science, but hostile. But in a remarkable example of their unabashed bias, on Friday they published an opinion piece that not only repeats many of the flawed and misleading arguments about climate science, but purports to be of special significance because it was signed by 16 “scientists.”"
http://www.forbes.com/sites/petergl...n-climate-science-at-the-wall-street-journal/

 

[Ludicrus]

What a sad post: it's at the same level as kids in the school-yard taunting 'liar liar pants on fire!', but less honest. It's dressed up as spiritual gobbledegook instead.


Sorry, but my doctrine is Reformed Anglican, Calvinistic, Theistic Evolution with a framework understanding of early Genesis, and based on scripture. My social concerns are shaped by a Christian ethic of loving our neighbours, even the poor ones over in Africa and Southern America, and by science. Your world-view seems shaped more by Koch brothers conspiracy theories than anything in the real world.

Absolutely ridiculous rubbish: and you're again attacking my motives and basically slandering me without providing any evidence. The reality is there are loads of concerned Christians in climate science. The previous head of the IPCC, Sir John Haughton, is an evangelical Christian as is Bill McKibben, one of the greatest climate campaigners and science writers for a lay audience. Sure there might be a few nutters that use global warming to fit into some crazy earth-worship world-view, but you get nutters in Christianity as well. Some pervert the Christian bible into the Klu Klux Klan. By your logical Christianity would be bunk just because of the minority nutters.

What on earth are you talking about now?


You go have a good rant at those Satanic bushes there, and the other bushes over there, oh, and don't forget the reds under the bed. This is all run by Communists as well don't forget!


Neither will I, but, in pointing that out, I'm just not being sporting am I? I mean, if I really wanted to make your day I'd just admit to being a pagan and burning babies in my backyard.


Sorry, but environmentalists established one of America's better ideas, the National Parks. They've also improved our health, saved species, and broadened our understanding of God's amazing creativity in nature. They've given us wonderful parks in our cities, saved amazing wetlands, and tried to guarantee stable fisheries and environments to support the project of human civilisation. Your sad rant above seems ignorant of some of the better things that America has achieved. But, you're not alone. Sadly. The Koch-brothers have hit well above their means by funding so called 'think tanks' in churches, in elderly groups, in women's groups, and across society. Your thinking comes directly from big coal, which destroys mountain tops, kills tens of thousands of Americans through lung cancers and other respiratory complications a year, and ultimate is unnecessary and will one day run out. I'm sorry for you and sorry about how your country seems full of Denialist's that just basically hate science.

You're getting off on this.

Do you envision yourself as a glorified environmentalist pacman that gobbles up naysayers, Christians, little old ladies in churches, the elderly, anybody in the Church with a brain?

I actually love true science. What I hate is a movement of wolves in sheep's clothing. The kind of pseudo science that destroys people, their livelihoods, the fish, our forests, our businesses, communities and common sense. Oh, the rights of plants and animals over and above that of humans.

I hear they are now working on passing laws on the 'right to life' for plants. Gee, and they kill babies by the millions. Yeah, that's really doing good.

You profess that environmentalists have save sooo much! And yet the facts tell me you and your buddies are liars.

The logging was stopped to save the trees. The trees became infested and that infestation spread from the west coast and ate itself all the way to the east coast and destroyed the trees on my property. Beautiful stands of pine trees. Obliterated because of these idiots!!

Let's see, what's up next! Oh! The glass industry! We used to be able to buy our food items in glass jars. Many of them canning jars. But some idiots convinced the manufacturers to use plastic instead. Now we used to recycle almost all of those glass jars at home. Many of them we used as canning jars. And once we had those jars we used them for several years before they were too old to be used or got broken or chipped.

So they replaced it with plastic jars, bottles, bags and containers. And the plastic leaches into the food and water. And destroys people's health. And they are still coming up with more health problems caused the "the environmentalist cure".

Oh, and the next thing was paper bags. Save the trees. Save the forests. Get rid of paper bags and replace it with plastic.

Only the plastic is destroying the planet and killing the fish and animals.

Now, you got environmentalist companies that place out bins for recyclables. It's against the law for anybody to pick something out of that bin once it's been placed on the curb.

And those big, noisy, fuel guzzling trucks come through our neighborhoods polluting them, all for the sake of "saving the earth".

Then, they wanted to make sure we killed all of the germs in our homes and scaremongered women into buying antibacterial soaps. Children got cancer and millions of people's immune systems got/are getting thrashed. Because God built immune systems to learn to build up resistance.

No, I can't spew a bunch of elaborate debate at people on this topic because basically I spend more time on important things. You have to really practice to get the diatribe down to a science. You've obviously been practicing for a long time.


I can't, according to forum rules, tell you what I really think about your so-called professions. And since I can't speak freely and honestly here, but your hateful kind can, I will leave it at this.

 

[Biblewriter]

Oh I know you don't believe peer-reviewed science like evolution or climate science. You also don't 'believe in' answering questions do you? How's that multi-year thickness going? How much is there? At this stage you've not only failed High School science, but English comprehension as well.

PS: The WSJ is well known as one of the last papers foolish enough to act as a bastion of Denialism.

"The Wall Street Journal’s editorial board has long been understood to be not only antagonistic to the facts of climate science, but hostile. But in a remarkable example of their unabashed bias, on Friday they published an opinion piece that not only repeats many of the flawed and misleading arguments about climate science, but purports to be of special significance because it was signed by 16 “scientists.”"
Remarkable Editorial Bias on Climate Science at the Wall Street Journal - Forbes

This is just another example of your blindly accepting (by faith) whatever is said by your false "experts." If you had bothered to check, you would have known that the sixteen signers to the report you call "denialist," and that your source idiotically mocked by putting their true titles of scientists in quotation marks are:

1. Claude Allegre, former director of the Institute for the Study of the Earth, University of Paris
2. J. Scott Armstrong, cofounder of the Journal of Forecasting and the International Journal of Forecasting
3. Jan Breslow, head of the Laboratory of Biochemical Genetics and Metabolism, Rockefeller University
4. Roger Cohen, fellow, American Physical Society
5. Edward David, member, National Academy of Engineering and National Academy of Sciences
6. William Happer, professor of physics, Princeton
7. Michael Kelly, professor of technology, University of Cambridge, U.K.
8. William Kininmonth, former head of climate research at the Australian Bureau of Meteorology
9. Richard Lindzen, professor of atmospheric sciences, MIT
10. James McGrath, professor of chemistry, Virginia Technical University
11. Rodney Nichols, former president and CEO of the New York Academy of Sciences
12. Burt Rutan, aerospace engineer, designer of Voyager and SpaceShipOne
13. Harrison H. Schmitt, Apollo 17 astronaut and former U.S. senator
14. Nir Shaviv, professor of astrophysics, Hebrew University, Jerusalem
15. Henk Tennekes, former director, Royal Dutch Meteorological Service
16. Antonio Zichichi, president of the World Federation of Scientists, Geneva

Sixteen Concerned Scientists: No Need to Panic About Global Warming - WSJ.com

The article began with the resignation of Nobel Prize-winning physicist Ivar Giaever from the American Physical Society (APS) with a letter that begins: "I did not renew [my membership] because I cannot live with the [APS policy] statement: 'The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth's physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.'

 

[eclipsenow]

You're getting off on this.

Charming.

I actually love true science. What I hate is a movement of wolves in sheep's clothing. The kind of pseudo science that destroys people, their livelihoods, the fish, our forests, our businesses, communities and common sense. Oh, the rights of plants and animals over and above that of humans.

Please provide evidence that environmentalism has destroyed fish, forests, livelihoods, businesses, communities, and common sense?

I hear they are now working on passing laws on the 'right to life' for plants. Gee, and they kill babies by the millions. Yeah, that's really doing good.

Oh you hear that do you?

You profess that environmentalists have save sooo much! And yet the facts tell me you and your buddies are liars.

Please provide evidence that we are liars.

The logging was stopped to save the trees. The trees became infested and that infestation spread from the west coast and ate itself all the way to the east coast and destroyed the trees on my property. Beautiful stands of pine trees. Obliterated because of these idiots!!

Please provide evidence of this infestation.

Let's see, what's up next! Oh! The glass industry! We used to be able to buy our food items in glass jars. Many of them canning jars. But some idiots convinced the manufacturers to use plastic instead. Now we used to recycle almost all of those glass jars at home. Many of them we used as canning jars. And once we had those jars we used them for several years before they were too old to be used or got broken or chipped.

I love the idea of using recycled glass jars, and most environmentalists I know would also. Please stop your off-topic ranting, and provide evidence that it was environmentalists who moved food producers from glass jars to plastics!

So they replaced it with plastic jars, bottles, bags and containers. And the plastic leaches into the food and water. And destroys people's health. And they are still coming up with more health problems caused the "the environmentalist cure".

You're arguing my case for me. It's not really on the topic of global warming, but plastic chemicals leaching into food is exactly the kind of thing that environmentalists I know are concerned about.

Oh, and the next thing was paper bags. Save the trees. Save the forests. Get rid of paper bags and replace it with plastic.

Please provide evidence that it was environmentalists who switched from paper bags to plastic bags. Most environmentalists I know are working on exactly the opposite: getting supermarkets to move from plastic bags to reusable Hessian bags. Grist is a poplular greenie blog, and 5 minutes there will convince anyone that banning plastic bags is high on the environmentalist agenda. Kids ban plastic bags, plastic bag ban sweeps across nation, there's a hole in my plastic bag law, biodegradable plastics make false claims and there's a hole in my plastic bag law are just a sampling.

Indeed, in China they've just outright banned the manufacture of certain categories of plastic bag in the first place!

In the case of China, which over the weekend celebrated five years of restrictions on plastic shopping bags, officials are showering their ban with accolades and crediting it with keeping tens of billions of bags out of landfills and the environment.

China’s plastic-bag ban turns five years old | Grist

None of this is about global warming though, which really is the topic of this thread.

Only the plastic is destroying the planet and killing the fish and animals.

And most environmentalists, even the Earth-mother worshipping variety, would say "AMEN sister!" to your concern.

Now, you got environmentalist companies that place out bins for recyclables. It's against the law for anybody to pick something out of that bin once it's been placed on the curb.

Recycling bins are a good idea, but I agree that if something can be recycled by local users before going into the recycling system, that's even better. Please provide evidence that it is against the law.

And those big, noisy, fuel guzzling trucks come through our neighborhoods polluting them, all for the sake of "saving the earth".

Rubbish collection is an integral part of living in a decent civilisation. As British comedian Dudley Moore said, "Civilisation is a decent sewerage system." Rubbish collection trucks can be fuelled on the biomass waste from local council tips. One ton of local biomass waste can be brewed up into about 1000km of fuel.

Then, they wanted to make sure we killed all of the germs in our homes and scaremongered women into buying antibacterial soaps.

Who is this mythical 'they' you're going on about? You really are having an off-topic rant, aren't you?

Children got cancer and millions of people's immune systems got/are getting thrashed.

My own boy had Leukaemia once, and so I am aware of the depleted immune system theory. Once again, this is not on topic!

No, I can't spew a bunch of elaborate debate at people on this topic because basically I spend more time on important things. You have to really practice to get the diatribe down to a science. You've obviously been practicing for a long time.

I'm sorry sister, but it was your decision to join this thread and attack my character over something you obviously know nothing about. You swallowed a bunch of lies about global warming and then lashed out at me and accused your brother in Christ of being a Gaia-worshipper. It's not my fault that you did this, and it's also not my fault that none of your post above was actually on the topic of climate change!

I can't, according to forum rules, tell you what I really think about your so-called professions. And since I can't speak freely and honestly here, but your hateful kind can, I will leave it at this.

Agreed. It's probably best that you not 'contribute' to this thread if you can only add hatred and ignorance.

 

[eclipsenow]

This is just another example of your blindly accepting (by faith) whatever is said by your false "experts." If you had bothered to check, you would have known that the sixteen signers to the report you call "denialist," and that your source idiotically mocked by putting their true titles of scientists in quotation marks are:

1. Claude Allegre, former director of the Institute for the Study of the Earth, University of Paris
2. J. Scott Armstrong, cofounder of the Journal of Forecasting and the International Journal of Forecasting
3. Jan Breslow, head of the Laboratory of Biochemical Genetics and Metabolism, Rockefeller University
4. Roger Cohen, fellow, American Physical Society
5. Edward David, member, National Academy of Engineering and National Academy of Sciences
6. William Happer, professor of physics, Princeton
7. Michael Kelly, professor of technology, University of Cambridge, U.K.
8. William Kininmonth, former head of climate research at the Australian Bureau of Meteorology
9. Richard Lindzen, professor of atmospheric sciences, MIT
10. James McGrath, professor of chemistry, Virginia Technical University
11. Rodney Nichols, former president and CEO of the New York Academy of Sciences
12. Burt Rutan, aerospace engineer, designer of Voyager and SpaceShipOne
13. Harrison H. Schmitt, Apollo 17 astronaut and former U.S. senator
14. Nir Shaviv, professor of astrophysics, Hebrew University, Jerusalem
15. Henk Tennekes, former director, Royal Dutch Meteorological Service
16. Antonio Zichichi, president of the World Federation of Scientists, Geneva

Sixteen Concerned Scientists: No Need to Panic About Global Warming - WSJ.com

The article began with the resignation of Nobel Prize-winning physicist Ivar Giaever from the American Physical Society (APS) with a letter that begins: "I did not renew [my membership] because I cannot live with the [APS policy] statement: 'The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth's physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.'

I may get back to chasing up this particular ball for you if you can stop side-tracking for 5 minutes and answer the last subject you raised

how's the multi-year Arctic ice doing?

Or are you going to continue the 'throw mud and run' routine?

 

[Biblewriter]

I may get back to chasing up this particular ball for you if you can stop side-tracking for 5 minutes and answer the last subject you raised

how's the multi-year Arctic ice doing?

Or are you going to continue the 'throw mud and run' routine?

If I even cared anymore, I would work on more proof of the errors of this nonsense. But as you have clearly demonstrated that you have no intention of listening to reason, I will just continue to post news articles that demonstrate that error when they pop up.

 

[eclipsenow]

If I even cared anymore, I would work on more proof of the errors of this nonsense. But as you have clearly demonstrated that you have no intention of listening to reason, I will just continue to post news articles that demonstrate that error when they pop up.

So this isn't a conversation any more but has instead become your personal anti-science blog rant? Interesting. And I'm the one that fails to listen to reason? Well, in that case I decline to bother chasing every single Denialist 'ball' you toss my direction. I'll only reply to matters that actually interest me, not every single boring anti-science rant or ridiculous blog you decide to link to. This is about science, not your personal opinion informed by science-bashing fanbois. (Talk about refusing to listen to reason. Or data. Or facts. )

In this spirit of accepting actual data, and not just relying on the word of 'bloggers', we'll now turn to NASA for the FACTS on the Arctic.

Last September, at the end of the northern hemisphere summer, the Arctic Ocean's icy cover shrank to its lowest extent on record, continuing a long-term trend and diminishing to about half the size of the average summertime extent from 1979 to 2000.

During the cold and dark of Arctic winter, sea ice refreezes and achieves its maximum extent, usually in late February or early March. According to a NASA analysis, this year the annual maximum extent was reached on Feb. 28 and it was the fifth lowest sea ice winter extent in the past 35 years.

The new maximum -5.82 million square miles (15.09 million square kilometers)- is in line with a continuing trend in declining winter Arctic sea ice extent: nine of the ten smallest recorded maximums have occurred during the last decade. The 2013 winter extent is 144,402 square miles (374,000 square kilometers) below the average annual maximum extent for the last three decades.

"The Arctic region is in darkness during winter and the predominant type of radiation is long-wave or infrared, which is associated with greenhouse warming," said Joey Comiso, senior scientist at NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md., and a principal investigator of NASA's Cryospheric Sciences Program. "A decline in the sea ice cover in winter is thus a manifestation of the effect of the increasing greenhouse gases on sea ice."

Satellite data retrieved since the late 1970s show that sea ice extent, which includes all areas of the Arctic Ocean where ice covers at least 15 percent of the ocean surface, is diminishing. This decline is occurring at a much faster pace in the summer than in the winter; in fact, some models predict that the Arctic Ocean could be ice-free in the summer in just a few decades.

The behavior of the winter sea ice maximum is not necessarily predictive of the following melt season. The record shows there are times when an unusually large maximum is followed by an unusually low minimum, and vice versa.

"You would think the two should be related, because if you have extensive maximum, that means you had an unusually cold winter and that the ice would have grown thicker than normal. And you would expect thicker ice to be more difficult to melt in the summer," Comiso said. "But it isn't as simple as that. You can have a lot of other forces that affect the ice cover in the summer, like the strong storm we got in August last year, which split a huge segment of ice that then got transported south to warmer waters, where it melted."

The NASA Goddard sea ice record is one of several analyses, along with those produced by the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) in Boulder, Colo. The two institutions use slightly different methods in their sea ice tally, but overall, their trends show close agreement. NSIDC announced that Arctic sea ice reached its winter maximum on Mar. 15, at an extent of 5.84 million square miles (15.13 million square kilometers) – a difference of less than half a percent compared to the NASA maximum extent.

This animation shows the seasonal change in the extent of the Arctic sea ice between March 1, 2012 and February 28, 2013. The annual cycle starts with the maximum extent reached on March 15, 2012. Every summer the Arctic ice cap melts down to its minimum extent before colder weather builds the ice cover back up. This new ice generated on an annual basis is called "first-year" ice and is thinner than the older sea ice. The perennial ice is the portion of the ice cap that spans multiple years and represents its thickest component. On September 13, 2012, the sea ice minimum covered 3.439 million square kilometers, that is down by more than 3.571 million square kilometers from the high of 7.011 million square kilometers measured in 1980. The annual maximum extent for 2013 reached on February 28 reached an extent of 15.09 million square kilometers. Credit: NASA/Goddard​

2013 Wintertime Arctic Sea Ice Maximum Fifth Lowest on Record | NASA

 

[Ludicrus]

Charming.

[/b]
Please provide evidence that environmentalism has destroyed fish, forests, livelihoods, businesses, communities, and common sense?




Agreed. It's probably best that you not 'contribute' to this thread if you can only add hatred and ignorance.

Your deflection doesn't do a thing for your arguments. Everything that I listed had been on TV for ages and was public knowledge.

PBS has even done a ton of documentaries on it.

No, I don't hate you. Wouldn't waste my time or energy. I hate what you represent. I hate the lies that you and your global warming buddies peddle. I hate what you're buddies have done to people's lives.

But, I also know that they will get an opportunity to reap what they sow. Welcome to the Tribulation Baby!

 

[eclipsenow]

Your deflection doesn't do a thing for your arguments. Everything that I listed had been on TV for ages and was public knowledge.

No, it's common knowledge that environmentalism has protected National Parks from greedy developers, protected clean air and waterways from greedy corporations just dumping their toxic waste, and is trying to fight plastic bag pollution at every turn.

PBS has even done a ton of documentaries on it.

Evidence please? With such a broad barage of unusual accusations, which 'it' are we actually discussing?

I hate what you represent. I hate the lies that you and your global warming buddies peddle. I hate what you're buddies have done to people's lives.

It's really simple to test how CO2 redirects heat. It can be repeated again and again in a physics lab, if you're interested. I don't know what lies you are referring to, I honestly don't.

But, I also know that they will get an opportunity to reap what they sow. Welcome to the Tribulation Baby!

That's like saying Welcome to the Tribulation Baby! on the question of whether or not we should use plastic bags or go back to using glass containers. Which is it? Do you have a preference? Does one make more sense than others? Does one cause more pain than others? How will you know? What will YOU choose if it came down to a vote?

Please don't pretend that human energy choices are not our responsibility, or worse, put global warming in the 'God is doing it to judge us' category. When human beings hurt each other, we are to blame.

 

[Biblewriter]

So this isn't a conversation any more but has instead become your personal anti-science blog rant? Interesting. And I'm the one that fails to listen to reason? Well, in that case I decline to bother chasing every single Denialist 'ball' you toss my direction. I'll only reply to matters that actually interest me, not every single boring anti-science rant or ridiculous blog you decide to link to. This is about science, not your personal opinion informed by science-bashing fanbois. (Talk about refusing to listen to reason. Or data. Or facts. )

Being a real scientist, I clearly am not anti science. I am anti pseudo-science.

Science is not decided by consensus. It is based on evidence. And when that "evidence" has been willfully manipulated, with false information being circulated as "fact," we real scientiscts get upset. We also get upset when those who are presenting that bogus "information" simply refuse to look at information that disproves their theories.

But our greatest upset comes when they not only refuse to consider other data, but actively attempt to suppress that disproving information. This results on an host of "useful idiots" (that is their term, not ours) that become willing to act as evangelists of their false gospel.

 

[Biblewriter]

Evidence please? With such a broad barage of unusual accusations, which 'it' are we actually discussing?


It's really simple to test how CO2 redirects heat. It can be repeated again and again in a physics lab, if you're interested. I don't know what lies you are referring to, I honestly don't.

There was nothing even slightly unusual about his accusations. and if you did not restrict your reading to the alarmist propaganda, you would know about the lies he was referring to. In England, the falsehood was so conclusively proved in court that the court issued an order making it illegal for a school to show Al Gore's famous movie about global warming without pointing out the disinformation it contains.

 

[eclipsenow]

Being a real scientist, I clearly am not anti science. I am anti pseudo-science.

Science is not decided by consensus. It is based on evidence. And when that "evidence" has been willfully manipulated, with false information being circulated as "fact," we real scientiscts get upset. We also get upset when those who are presenting that bogus "information" simply refuse to look at information that disproves their theories.

But our greatest upset comes when they not only refuse to consider other data, but actively attempt to suppress that disproving information. This results on an host of "useful idiots" (that is their term, not ours) that become willing to act as evangelists of their false gospel.

Data doesn't enter into your world-view, or you wouldn't have posted that previous rubbish about the Arctic ice recovering. It hasn't. Period.

 

[eclipsenow]

There was nothing even slightly unusual about his accusations. and if you did not restrict your reading to the alarmist propaganda, you would know about the lies he was referring to. In England, the falsehood was so conclusively proved in court that the court issued an order making it illegal for a school to show Al Gore's famous movie about global warming without pointing out the disinformation it contains.

An Inconvenient Truth had a few oversimplifications, one of which being the Milankovitch cycles interactions with CO2. But generally speaking it raised climate awareness, and that's a good thing.

PS: Which English court banned An Inconvenient Truth in schools? When? You really believe these Denialist websites of yours, don't you? You're really sucked in by them. How sad. You seem intelligent in some areas, but are obviously so keen to believe anything against climate science that you seem to have lost the ability to objectively test the Denialosphere's rumour mill for yourself. Try to check wikipedia first? Then you won't embarrass yourself getting caught out pushing childish claims about Arctic sea ice, or British bans on movies, that are in reality completely untrue.

The plaintiff sought to prevent the educational use of An Inconvenient Truth on the grounds that schools are legally required to provide a balanced presentation of political issues. The court ruled that the film was substantially founded upon scientific research and fact and could continue to be shown, but it had a degree of political bias such that teachers would be required to explain the context via guidance notes issued to schools along with the film. The court also identified nine of what the plaintiff called 'errors' in the film which were departures from the scientific mainstream, and ruled that the guidance notes must address these items specifically.

Dimmock v Secretary of State for Education and Skills - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[interpreter]

The last plagues are poured out over a period of many years. Global warming will get much worse, due to global-warming deniers.