Global warming and the end

[Interplanner]

you don't have to answer anything. Don't make yourself miserable, but you sound that way.

Back on the question about the supernatural on that radio program, the point was that many hours on COAST TO COAST are on nonsense of the paranormal. This interview never went off on that.

 

[Interplanner]

I won't be continuing much with you because you are an insulting person. The Taku information was not babble, but now I know what you are like. It taught me to be wary of "book count" of these things. If you go there, you travel for hours and miles and miles over enormous snow fields all up the SW British Columbia coast, just a bit north of Vancouver at the end of summer, it boggles the mind. What in the world are these experts talking about. Then you get down to 80 year details and find out something like that is actually growing. By simple indicators like bulldozing trees. Otherwise "Hole in the Wall" wouldn't even be there. Something is really wrong with experts and their books. Which I think you just said yourself: "He (Ball) is a scientist and I'm not."

In other news, about a month ago there was a record count of Chinook salmon in the Columbia water basin. One of the contributing factors was how the Pacific was cooling. It was in most of our areas news outlets.

 

[eclipsenow]

re glaciers. no they are not all melting; ie, Taku.

This is called cherry-picking. You picked the one unique glacier that isn't melting in an area where 20 others are melting. This glacier has it's own unique ice dynamics. This is why anecdotal evidence is no guarantee of scientific truth. "But I saw this great big glacier!**" is not going to tell you about the state of the world's glaciers, and I have already shown graphs that show the ice loss around the world and the ratio of glaciers that are growing to the ratio that are shrinking. This is why you should actually read the posts of the person you are disagreeing with!

In other words, the 'book learning' you want to throw out is actually more relevant than the singular cherry-picked case you have personal experience of. The 'book learning' you want to bar is actually just an accumulation of personal experiences, just like yours, but quantified by scientists and written down. You have been to the Taku, and are telling me how amazing it is over the internet. I honestly wish I could see it, and then have time to go an investigate all the other glaciers in the area. Then it wouldn't be 'book learning' for me but personal experience, and the trip of a lifetime. But you cannot rule out other people's personal experiences and the accumulated knowledge of the human race just because you have not experienced it! This is why we do science, and write reports, and invent things like this internet contraption that you're obviously convinced enough to use to write a blog!
(**Lucky you! I wish I could have been there man, I really do. It sounds AWESOME!)

I mean, did you even read the wiki on the Taku?

**** From the WIKI****
​

The glacier, which converges with the Taku River at Taku Inlet, has a history of advancing until it blocks the river, creating a lake, followed by a dramatic break of the ice dam. The most recent of these advances occurred in 1750. The glacier has advanced 7.75 kilometres (4.82 mi) since 1890, and as of June 29, 2012 is 1.26 kilometres (0.78 mi) from Taku Point.[2] It is the only advancing glacier of the 20 major glaciers of the Juneau Icefield.[3] If the advance continues it will again block the river, but this appears unlikely at present. Since 1946, the glacier has been monitored by the Juneau Icefield Research Program, which has documented its rate of advance since 1988 at 17 metres (56 ft) a year. The advance is due to a positive mass balance; that is, more snow accumulates than snow and ice melt. Until 1948 the glacier had a calving front; since then the terminus has been grounded.
Due to the positive mass balance and the fact that it was no longer losing mass to icebergs, Taku Glacier has become insensitive to the warming that has impacted all other glaciers of the icefield. This has driven its advance. The recent negative mass balance 1989-2005 is not large enough yet to stop the advance, but it is the first sign that the glacier's advance may not take it to Taku Point.
Taku Glacier - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Just a reminder of the global situation:


Retreat of glaciers since 1850 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Or try this, for a truly global picture. Yes, a couple of glaciers may have grown in unique local circumstances. Global climate is a very complex thing to map out. There are some surprises, sometimes, for us lay people.

Summary

The effective rate of change in glacier thickness, also known as the glaciological mass balance, is a measure of the average change in a glacier's thickness after correcting for changes in density associated with the compaction of snow and conversion to ice. The map shows the average annual rate of thinning since 1970 for the 173 glaciers that have been measured at least 5 times between 1970 and 2004 (Dyurgerov and Meier 2005). Larger changes are plotted as larger circles and towards the back.
All survey regions except Scandinavia show a net thinning. This widespread glacier retreat is generally regarded as a sign of global warming.
During this period, 83% of surveyed glaciers showed thinning with an average loss across all glaciers of 0.31 m/yr. The most rapidly growing glacier in the sample is Engabreen glacier in Norway with a thickening of 0.64 m/yr. The most rapidly shrinking was Ivory glacier in New Zealand which was thinning at 2.4 m/yr. Ivory glacier had totally disintegrated by circa 1988 [1].
File:Glacier Mass Balance Map.png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Or try this, for an even simpler graphic of the world's glacier crisis.

(Note: see the bump in the 1960's and 70's? That's from global dimming, and is a key idea behind my signature. It may be the quickest cheapest way to undo the VERY REAL damage we've already done to the earth's climate).

 

[Interplanner]

Yes I know wikipedia. I know there are many errors embedded in it. I'm really surprised at that reference.

Yes "insensitive" was the Seattle Times commentor's phrase as well.

It still stands that we probably don't know enough about the whole icefield's interrelations to say why some are reducing and others are advancing.

Here is a good example of how "science" comes across to me. A monitor was at a site near Obstruction Pt, in nps.gov/oly where I hike every year. It was on top of a 7000 ft ridge, a very windy place and it was about nitrification. I wrote to the UW ph.d. student doing it. She explained a similar catastrophe to warming, in similar extreme terms, that plants in our national parks were being killed off by nitrification and we had to do something. I said I have hiked there for 50 years; could she please send an ex. of what to look for in plants. Nothing. When I wrote the 2nd time, I said I am skeptical about "science" and it would help to be able to see all the death and catastrophe. Nothing. So you can do all kinds of things expressing this disaster in books and media and miss the practical sense.

That is why "insensitive to warming" is clever but obnoxious.

A Pennsylvania study on graduate education has shown that most people with master's degrees have almost no exposure to opposing ideas when they complete their studies.

As another example against "book count" from the Taku area, take the W. Twin glacier. Both of the Twins are smaller, but they have different shapes. There is prob an infinite number of shapes. Anyway, the practical point is: the Taku tour lodge does not get its kitchen/storage ice from the E. Twin any more, because there is no longer any fall into the river. It gets it from the W. Twin. Yet both are smaller. Hey, think what you could do with that in books. The horrors of a glacier that is no longer calving ice! No wait, the horrors of a glacier that "smaller," whatever that means! That is the reality of the shapes of these glaciers, not the "data" in the INTERNATIONAL COMPENDIUM OMNIBUS OF GLACIER RETREATMENTS. It could easily be spinning everything in a way that does not reflect what is really there; in the case of the Twins by a factor of 50%.

Just so you know, Hole in the Wall's (the side-glacier on the inner side of Taku Pt facing the tour lodge) source opening was merely a 100 foot dip in that ridge that forms Taku Pt as it "makes its point" down to the river. In the 1930 photos in the lodge, you can see ice showing through it but not spilling over. Of course, now it is. If you think through the motion of the glacier as water in slow motion (Hole in the Wall is a terrific sight because it is an icefall, and all the flakes show the depth of things since they are all spread at that point--100 feet each said the pilot), it is very easy for me to see thousand year forces at work, nothing to do with the last 50 or 100. Ie, it is easier for the momentum of Taku to escape through Hole than to go down the main channel, and "water always finds the path of least resistance." Thus the "retreat" from Taku Pt by the main channel (the great horror in Wikipedia) may be no indication of retreat at all. Instead it indicates a writer who needs to go out and play at the beach with sand and waves etc. And stop trying to crunch God's numbers as though they were subject to easy scrutiny.

 

[eclipsenow]

Yes I know wikipedia. I know there are many errors embedded in it. I'm really surprised at that reference.

Yes "insensitive" was the Seattle Times commentor's phrase as well.

It still stands that we probably don't know enough about the whole icefield's interrelations to say why some are reducing and others are advancing.

Who said? Admit it: that's just your opinion. The best minds from multiple disciplines have concluded that the known physics of CO2's heat trapping capacity is adding heat energy to the earth which is warming the oceans (where apparently 90% of the heat energy goes!) and the air.

You can't just vaguely say 'we don't know'. You have to have a reason why you think we don't know, especially when the majority of the world's climate scientists are emphatically saying we DO know why the MAJORITY of the world's glaciers ARE actually (in reality and not in some Denialist fantasy land) doing this thing we call MELTING! As in fast. As in receding and disappearing.

Here is a good example of how "science" comes across to me.

I'm not interested in your subjective experience of science, or any long winded tales you have about it. You either have good reasons for opposing climate science or you don't. So far, you don't. Period. It just doesn't fit with your politics or theology or something. But if you're a Christian, I would have hoped for a bit more intellectual honesty and self-awareness. You've deceived yourself, and are now telling yourself little stories about why you're going to let that continue. It's sad, and not very Christ honouring.

Once again, here's the REALITY you appear able to deny by telling yourself stories about how evil all scientists are and how nothing they know matches your hiking expeditions. Good luck with using that argument against anyone who is REALLY informed on this topic!!

That is why "insensitive to warming" is clever but obnoxious.

No, it's clever and accurate. Dude, you REALLY need to look at these graphs. They show you the WORLDWIDE PICTURE that you have so far ignored. That is, that 1/8th of glaciers might be growing, but most are melting, and that melting is accumulating into some SERIOUS ICE LOSS!

(In other words, as harsh as I may sound to you right now, I'm actually being gentle!)

Not only this, but you've failed to prove your earlier assertion that the world is cooling. I answered that comprehensively showing that the world's top databases show more recent years that are actually HOTTER than 1998. So "the world is cooling" is just another myth you seem to have swallowed.

Summary

The effective rate of change in glacier thickness, also known as the glaciological mass balance, is a measure of the average change in a glacier's thickness after correcting for changes in density associated with the compaction of snow and conversion to ice. The map shows the average annual rate of thinning since 1970 for the 173 glaciers that have been measured at least 5 times between 1970 and 2004 (Dyurgerov and Meier 2005). Larger changes are plotted as larger circles and towards the back.
All survey regions except Scandinavia show a net thinning. This widespread glacier retreat is generally regarded as a sign of global warming.
During this period, 83% of surveyed glaciers showed thinning with an average loss across all glaciers of 0.31 m/yr. The most rapidly growing glacier in the sample is Engabreen glacier in Norway with a thickening of 0.64 m/yr. The most rapidly shrinking was Ivory glacier in New Zealand which was thinning at 2.4 m/yr. Ivory glacier had totally disintegrated by circa 1988 [1].
File:Glacier Mass Balance Map.png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Or try this, for an even simpler graphic of the world's glacier crisis.

(Note: see the bump in the 1960's and 70's? That's from global dimming, and is a key idea behind my signature. It may be the quickest cheapest way to undo the VERY REAL damage we've already done to the earth's climate).

 

[eclipsenow]

You just keep deceiving & dividing christians as it will probably help bring on the end times as like I said even the very elect will be deceived.

As far as I can tell, we are saved by trusting in the Lord Jesus to remove our sin and make us children of God, living with Him as our King. There's nothing forbidding understanding science or being favourable to compassionate, sensible carbon policies.

I want to learn more on pre tribe verses post tribe as I'm not fully on board that we will be raptured away from all the global warmists, I'm afraid we might have to endure listening to them.

You really may, as an Amil myself I don't see ANY 'end times table' in Revelation. It's the gospel writ large in apocalyptic symbolism: the gospel that includes the promise that the Lord will return, but has no timetable for it. So it could be in 5 seconds, or in 50,000 years! We just don't know. As Martin Luther once said when asked what he would do if he knew the Lord would return tomorrow, he said "Plant a tree." Ponder that for a while!

God is in control, not us as you seem to think we can change nature.

Hmm, how many ways have we changed nature!?
1. Ate of the forbidden fruit and were cast out of paradise and alienated from nature. There's a big change! The FALL!
2. Forced hundreds of species into the oblivion of extinction. Our children cannot see or use or steward those creatures for their children: they're gone!
3. Dammed so many rivers and re-diverted the flow of so much freshwater that only half the world's rivers actually reach the ocean.
4. Converted 10% of the world's land surface to agriculture, and 30% for grazing, meaning we utilise about 40% of the land surface of the ocean.
5. Paved over and ploughed up most of the useful arable land on earth so that future generations will have to learn to do soil-less farming.
6. Radically changed the chemical composition of the atmosphere by increasing the carbon concentration from 270ppm to 400ppm.
7. Used up all the light, easy, 'sweet oil' so that our children can only enjoy the harder to extract, dirtier, sour and unconventional oils.
8. Overfished the world's oceans so that fish populations have crashed by 90%.
9. Chopped down the majority of the world's forests.
10. Increased desertification massively around the world.
11. Increased erosion.
12. Created chemical pollution that bio-accumulate up through the food chain.
13. Created the 5 oceanic garbage patches.
14. Created acid rain (in developing nations) but at least we fixed that in developed nations. Smog, industrial strength coal particulate pollution that kills tens of thousands of people a year, etc.

But no, God is in control! (Yes, He is sovereign, but He still allows sin and the effects of sin on this world. It's one of his judgements against us that we reap the consequences of our sin. So even though God is sovereign, he uses the fact that sometimes it really looks to us like mankind is in control: and that seems to be the definition of sin).

No need to reply to my post as I don't have the urge to carry on this crazy one sided conversation.

You're voicing your opinion and I'm voicing mine. It's just that yours is not well developed, thought out, or backed by facts.

I might come back from time to time for entertainment !

You can be as patronising as you like, but you'll still have to learn to use some facts now and then and develop some well thought out arguments. I'm not going to give you pity points, if that's what you are after.

Your kinda out of touch on this anyways as even half your so called scientist are not calling it global warming anymore, it's called climate change

I'm not out of touch, you're just uninformed. Global Warming was only ever a term for the popular media. It was always called Climate Science and Climatology.

as that way you can be right either way as some scientist are predicting a mini ice age,

Who? Evidence? You've inherited another Denialist Fox-News myth, and it's absolute rubbish.

You can still blame people for that too. No need to argue with me as I do not claim to be an expert on it as you are so I will not argue it & make myself look foolish, I'm hear to learn not teach.

I've never claimed to be an expert: I'm only saying that lay people can know, with confidence, that climate change is true if they bother to read the executive summaries from both the Denialist's and the peer-reviewed literature. They'll eventually see a pattern, as I did. Denialist's cherry-pick, only present half the picture, or outright lie.

Now I'm back to learning about the bible, not mans deception.

1. You have not proved that climate science is man's deception, just repeated it 3 times and clicked your ruby slippers together to hope it is so.
2. You have not proved that Christians cannot do BOTH and honour God both in their bible study and in their God-honouring, creation stewarding, compassionate energy policies.
3. You have not defended that an arrogant climate denying attitude is actually Godly, nor shown how using fossil fuels is preferable to clean sustainable long term energy security.
4. You have not shown how ignoring climate change also ignores the fact that fossil fuels will RUN OUT one day anyway, so we should start preparing before fossil fuels even peak, let alone run out!
Global oil supplies could be peaking sometime in the next decade or so, but here's the history of American peak oil to get a primer.

Peak oil - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Interplanner]

Eclipse, the lie you may be subscribing to is that warming is man-made. There may be warming, I don't know. This year the Pacific was cool enough to spike Chinook runs.

Back to some other points: what is the "end" in terms of NT theology? I mean 'what do you mean in relation to what the NT says?'

Ethics: today I heard someone (non-christian) surprised that so and so actually said 'hello' to someone else in a store where they met accidentally. Christian ethics from the Gospel is about there being enough forgiveness and empathy about the human condition to say hello rather than be arrogant. Whether it has to do with super-infrastructures like what type of fuel, we use is quite another matter. Near Ephesus, Paul didn't know that the mining entrails of materials for Artemis idols was clogging up the river, or didn't say anything about it, but he did nail the idolatry. What is the ethical treatment of our neighbor when our gov now allows 47M on dehumanizing foodstamps that allow the purchases of junk foods instead of permitting the Keystone pipeline and real work and jobs?

 

[Interplanner]

Eclipse wrote:
Radically changed the chemical composition

The ex. was in ppm. My calculator does not have enough 0s to make this show up as a %. Is that what you call radical? Help! The paranoids are after me!

 

[Interplanner]

re oil peaking.
You are quite mistaken. You haven't been reading some of the "liberal" news, then, which has (credit) been honest enough to print the size of reserves found or calculations made about new processes.

 

[Interplanner]

Eclipse wrote:
I'm not interested in your subjective experience of science

It wasn't subjective; the ph.d. student actually refused to answer the question, or as Prager says, "the Left is the world's fastest growing religion" (where religion = faith without questions). The Left always "needs" a crisis so that centralized gov can take over. That is historic fact.

But more to the point: you're not interested. That's how you come across. You're not intersted in how science is done in the field, which was why I told the account of actually dealing with a UW scientist making broad crises-statements.

 

[Interplanner]

Eclipse, you're also not intersted in detail like Hole in the Wall. Go have a look; it really points the opposite direction.

If I was graphically skilled I'd send the optical illusion of the dot-matrix arrow pointing left. When you zoomed in on the dots, you found that individually they were pointing to the right. That's what it is like to actually visit sites like Taku or the Twins or even to back up further, to see how small their reduction can impact things when considering the whole size of the planet, a planet floating in a temp of what--negative 150 space?

 

[eclipsenow]

Eclipse, the lie you may be subscribing to is that warming is man-made. There may be warming, I don't know. This year the Pacific was cool enough to spike Chinook runs.

Interplanner, the lie that you are subscribing to is that we're not responsible for how we've messed up this planet in so many ways, and that we're not actually changing the climate. We are. This is demonstrable through the rise in average ocean and air temperatures, through the basic laws of physics on how CO2 traps energy, and through observation of worldwide retreating glaciers, worldwide seasonal changes with Spring arriving early and Autumn lasting later and later. (Generally speaking, as there are sometimes local exceptions).

Back to some other points: what is the "end" in terms of NT theology? I mean 'what do you mean in relation to what the NT says?'

I'll answer this when you explain to me why you think worldwide temperatures rising are NOT man made, and why you still stubbornly refuse to accept that worldwide, glaciers really are retreating.

Ethics: today I heard someone (non-christian) surprised that so and so actually said 'hello' to someone else in a store where they met accidentally. Christian ethics from the Gospel is about there being enough forgiveness and empathy about the human condition to say hello rather than be arrogant. Whether it has to do with super-infrastructures like what type of fuel, we use is quite another matter. Near Ephesus, Paul didn't know that the mining entrails of materials for Artemis idols was clogging up the river, or didn't say anything about it, but he did nail the idolatry. What is the ethical treatment of our neighbor when our gov now allows 47M on dehumanizing foodstamps that allow the purchases of junk foods instead of permitting the Keystone pipeline and real work and jobs?

You're conflating issues and dodging the point. Global Warming could destroy a third of Bangladesh, impact our ability to feed the world, and force tens of millions (maybe hundreds of millions!) to move, but you're worried about a few jobs in building a pipeline whose sole purpose is to move some of the most disgusting, immoral, high CO2, high-energy-to-mine ratio (low ERoEI) fuel? No way! It's immoral and unethical. Building out a mix of clean nuclear and renewable energy systems, a whole American made fleet of 100% electric cars, a whole American built super-fast super-efficient public transport and New Urbanist city system would get American moving on clean energy, in cleaner, more beautiful, more efficient cities, and provide a more humane way to live.

I'm afraid you're sounding like this guy....

 

[eclipsenow]

Eclipse, you're also not intersted in detail like Hole in the Wall. Go have a look; it really points the opposite direction.

If I was graphically skilled I'd send the optical illusion of the dot-matrix arrow pointing left. When you zoomed in on the dots, you found that individually they were pointing to the right. That's what it is like to actually visit sites like Taku or the Twins or even to back up further, to see how small their reduction can impact things when considering the whole size of the planet, a planet floating in a temp of what--negative 150 space?

Dude, nothing here makes sense. I'm not ignoring the fact that Taku isn't melting: I'm saying that YOU are actively proving my point by ignoring the demonstrable FACT that 7/8ths of the rest of the world's glaciers ARE melting, and that this WILL have an incredible impact on the human race. Do you know how many people these glaciers FEED?

Melting mountain glaciers contribute to sea level rise as well, but they are of more immediate concern because of their roles in the everyday lives of millions of people. They provide drinking water for villages and cities, irrigation water for farms, and fuel for hydropower plants. These vital services are in jeopardy because mountain glaciers worldwide are shrinking at accelerating rates. For instance, 37 reference glaciers studied by the World Glacier Monitoring Service shrank three times faster from 2000 to 2009 than from 1980 to 1989. (See data.)


The glaciers in the Himalayas—the largest concentration of ice outside of the two poles—have been dubbed Asia’s “water towers” because of their large water storage capacity. Their runoff feeds Asia’s great rivers, including the Indus, Ganges, and Brahmaputra, which support hundreds of millions of people. Climbers attracted to the one-of-a-kind peaks tell their own stories of melting ice. In many places, what had been blinding white ice and snow fields in the days of the first explorers are now bare rock. More avalanches and more crevasses add risk to already dangerous treks. Data collected by the Chinese Academy of Sciences validate these anecdotes, showing that glacier melt in the Eastern and Central Himalayas has sped up. This will continue as temperatures rise.


Glaciers in the Alps perform a similar water tower function for Europe, and they too are shrinking. Switzerland’s Great Aletsch glacier, the largest in the Alps, has retreated by more than 2 kilometers since 1900. In Germany, a local ski company concerned by the rapid shrinkage of Zugspitze glacier resorted to covering the ice with a 9,000-square-meter reflective blanket. But this is just a Band-Aid; without addressing the real problem of rising temperature, 90 percent of all Alpine glaciers could be wiped out by 2100. Such a dramatic loss can already be seen in the nearby Spanish Pyrenees Mountains, where close to 90 percent of the glacier cover has disappeared over the past century.

There is much more, if you're brave enough to read it.

Eco-Economy Indicators - Ice Melting - Where Has All the Ice Gone? | EPI


Do you know anything about this subject at all, this whole field that you're stubbornly turning your nose up at while sounding more and more ignorant about it?

 

[eclipsenow]

Eclipse wrote:
Radically changed the chemical composition

The ex. was in ppm. My calculator does not have enough 0s to make this show up as a %. Is that what you call radical? Help! The paranoids are after me!

We've nearly doubled the quantity of a powerful substance in the atmosphere. The fact that it is a small percentage of the whole says nothing about it's power. Only a small spider bite could kill you. The venom would be a tiny percentage of your blood, but you would still be dead.

I think you need to calm down a bit and do a whole lot more reading on this topic before you reply any further as you're only displaying more and more ignorance with each post.

 

[eclipsenow]

re oil peaking.
You are quite mistaken. You haven't been reading some of the "liberal" news, then, which has (credit) been honest enough to print the size of reserves found or calculations made about new processes.

You did not read what I wrote. Again. I said sweet oil is peaking, not total oil. You need to read what I actually write, and try to understand the terminology before you're going to criticise me. I don't think global peak oil will look like a peak, but a long, increasingly dirty plateau. We're making up for the high ERoEI sweet oil by digging increasingly difficult to get at, increasingly dirty tar sands and shale oil which is very low ERoEI, very dirty, and more costly to produce.

In May 2005 I was part of a group of concerned citizens, not scientists, who presented a peak oil seminar to the NSW Upper House minority parties. We predicted that oil would double in real money terms in the next decade. The price of oil had just made the headlines. We bought the paper and took it in to show the politicians. The price of oil that day? $60 dollars a barrel. Oh the good old days!

(I've never been right on any economic prediction ever, except this one. It wasn't economics, but that special place where macro-scale scientific trends impact the economy. Rising oil demand from India and China and flattening supply mean the price will go up. But then the GFC hit America's economy, largely in part because of America's mortgage system but also because of America's addiction to cheap oil, and the result was a 25% DROP in America's DEMAND for oil. Don't tell me high oil prices don't impact America when that happens!)

 

[eclipsenow]

Eclipse wrote:
I'm not interested in your subjective experience of science

It wasn't subjective; the ph.d. student actually refused to answer the question,

What right do you think you have to her work? Just who on earth do you think you are? If some random, disagreeable guy comes up and starts hassling me while I'm trying to work, the last thing I'm doing to do is be obliging towards him and do him any favours!

or as Prager says, "the Left is the world's fastest growing religion" (where religion = faith without questions).

The Tea party is a faith. It is an anti-science, anti-reason faith whose mantra teaches that smaller government is ALWAYS better, and ANYTHING, including the national threat of climate change, can just go jump! You've swallowed this anti-science, anti-reason faith without knowing ANY of the pertinent facts, as the last discussion demonstrates. Every time you open your mouth you condemn yourself as stubbornly rejecting whole fields of science without knowing ANYTHING about them.

The Left always "needs" a crisis so that centralized gov can take over. That is historic fact.

Yep, I've studied 1984 (all about Big Brother) and Animal Farm and been fascinated by the extreme left. I'm Middle, BTW. Not a full on socialist but Social Liberalism, which is here.

But more to the point: you're not interested. That's how you come across. You're not intersted in how science is done in the field, which was why I told the account of actually dealing with a UW scientist making broad crises-statements.

1. You admitted you haven't read the paper, let alone DONE THE ACTUAL RESEARCH SHE WAS DOING.
2. You just saw something you didn't like, acted like a buffoon, and use this completely irrelevant, completely embarrassing story of your own paranoid behaviour to try and tarnish the work of thousands and thousands of scientists around the world.
3. Every single National Academy of Science on the planet has agreed that AGW is happening!
Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
4. So you are trying to create a conspiracy theory that tarnishes all scientists everywhere, especially climate scientists, when many of them are hard-working conscientious CHRISTIAN scientists, all on the basis of yourself behaving rather arrogantly towards a young lady just trying to do her job.
5. Go figure.

 

[Interplanner]

There have been significant admissions by those scientists about models.

But I have only one other thought at the moment. When I was learning to read the Bible more scientifically, I had to adjust to the standard belief of the age of the universe and where this brief human planet's history fit in. Dr. H. Ross (U Toronto) helped enormously. That's also why I mention Taku and Hole in the Wall. When you stand on the ice like I did, toward the bottom, you realized that ice fell as rain/snow 500-1000 years ago. The forces that pushed through and formed Hole in the Wall started that long and absolutely nothing about the past 100 years can do anything about it, nor has. To interpret Taku by "the book" (all the data), you would expect the exact opposite of what has happened.

Taku is 40 miles long. Those other glaciers are puny by comparison, as is Blue and Hoh and Carrie near me in nps.gov/oly. Then there is the consideration of their shape. If the floor is steep, it doesn't mean that much when they recede because they don't retain anyway. Taku's floor is 40 miles from 6-7000 to sea level. Anyone with their wits would go see how Taku is doing rather than one or 10 of the little steep glaciers to really see how things are. The 80 year picture of Taku and Hole in the Wall is clear enough on that. Actually, I'm surprised it could punch through and flow down in as little as 80 years (considering how "evil" these 80 years have been).

But yes, you could print "data" to the millions in NYC and Munich and scare the blood right out of them with the #s of glaciers receding--they are the smallest and least reliable measurements. Which habit is also why the gal from the UW didn't answer questions about nitrified plants, even though she answered 6 other kinds of questions after that had been asked and is in a ph.d. program.

Look up the current shellfish controversy in our PUget Sound area. The Seattle times hopes to win Pulitzers for its "work" in covering this "tragedy" when in fact the local species are thriving, but there are TONS OF DATA ABOUT THE FOREIGN SPECIES DYING OFF TO SCARE THE ST READERS which is what those prizes are all about! Isn't it dramatic to say 6 species of shellfish are dying!

 

[eclipsenow]

There have been significant admissions by those scientists about models.

But I have only one other thought at the moment. When I was learning to read the Bible more scientifically, I had to adjust to the standard belief of the age of the universe and where this brief human planet's history fit in. Dr. H. Ross (U Toronto) helped enormously. That's also why I mention Taku and Hole in the Wall. When you stand on the ice like I did, toward the bottom, you realized that ice fell as rain/snow 500-1000 years ago. The forces that pushed through and formed Hole in the Wall started that long and absolutely nothing about the past 100 years can do anything about it, nor has. To interpret Taku by "the book" (all the data), you would expect the exact opposite of what has happened.

Taku is 40 miles long. Those other glaciers are puny by comparison, as is Blue and Hoh and Carrie near me in nps.gov/oly. Then there is the consideration of their shape. If the floor is steep, it doesn't mean that much when they recede because they don't retain anyway. Taku's floor is 40 miles from 6-7000 to sea level. Anyone with their wits would go see how Taku is doing rather than one or 10 of the little steep glaciers to really see how things are. The 80 year picture of Taku and Hole in the Wall is clear enough on that. Actually, I'm surprised it could punch through and flow down in as little as 80 years (considering how "evil" these 80 years have been).

But yes, you could print "data" to the millions in NYC and Munich and scare the blood right out of them with the #s of glaciers receding--they are the smallest and least reliable measurements. Which habit is also why the gal from the UW didn't answer questions about nitrified plants, even though she answered 6 other kinds of questions after that had been asked and is in a ph.d. program.

Look up the current shellfish controversy in our PUget Sound area. The Seattle times hopes to win Pulitzers for its "work" in covering this "tragedy" when in fact the local species are thriving, but there are TONS OF DATA ABOUT THE FOREIGN SPECIES DYING OFF TO SCARE THE ST READERS which is what those prizes are all about! Isn't it dramatic to say 6 species of shellfish are dying!

1. Are you really saying that if you went to the 7/8ths of the glaciers in the world that are reported to be melting you would find that they weren't, and the glacier body was lying to us? Are you saying that because you've seen Taku and not the others that you simply will not accept the photographic or scientific evidence of the state of the others?
2. If you only believe things you have actually seen with your own eyes, how are you a Christian?
3. What would it take to accept that AGW is a real problem that demands some level of attention from Christians?

 

[Biblewriter]

The Tea party is a faith. It is an anti-science, anti-reason faith whose mantra teaches that smaller government is ALWAYS better, and ANYTHING, including the national threat of climate change, can just go jump! You've swallowed this anti-science, anti-reason faith without knowing ANY of the pertinent facts, as the last discussion demonstrates.

This, from a man who has demonstrated he does not understand basic physics and tries to correct what he imagines are the scientific errors made by a legally certified scientist!

http://www.truthrevolt.org/news/yale-professor-media-biased-me-against-tea-party-theyre-more-scientifically-literate

 

[eclipsenow]

This, from a man who has demonstrated he does not understand basic physics and tries to correct what he imagines are the scientific errors made by a legally certified scientist!

Yale Professor: Media Biased Me Against Tea Party, But They're More Scientifically Literate | Truth Revolt

Sidestepping your thread obligations again? You made a certain assertion a few pages back about the Arctic ice. I'm wondering how scientific those assertions really are?

I note how much you would rather discuss me than the evidence you've been attacking? Fine. Let's clear this up. I think lay people have enough evidence to conclude that global warming is for real. I have enough comprehension to read and understand the very basics of climate change. I have enough comprehension to tell who the trustworthy characters are, which arguments are on the money and which are dishonest, and who tends to produce what.

Unless you want to assert that no one can believe the bible until they have a Phd in history to *really* believe the bible, don't go telling me I have to have a Phd in physics or climate science to see who is telling lies here: who is more trustworthy, what makes more sense, and ultimately, have enough information to be confident I know what is actually happening.

Denialist websites and papers are absolutely chock full of strawman attacks, half truths, outright lies, fossil fuel funding, and are also heavily associated with nutters who also declare that smoking has no effect on health. Climate scientists are hard working, highly qualified scientists who apply the *known* laws of physics to the atmosphere, do the math, and then tell us there is a problem. Many of these people are your brothers and sisters in Christ.

Yet you and interplanner would have us believe they are all lying to us in an elaborate, inter-galactic scaled, positively SCIENTOLOGIST sized conspiracy theory! Indeed, a much BIGGER conspiracy theory than if the moon landing were faked!

So, as a layman I must decide. On the one hand are credible scientists and the laws of physics regarding CO2 demonstrated before my very eyes, or lying nutters asking me to accept fancy conspiracy theories? And they can't even get their conspiracies co-ordinated! (Monkton fears this is a communist conspiracy to give all our money to Africa, others think it is a conspiracy to STOP Africa developing. Which is it?)