• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.

So obama believes in the myth of global warming...

B

Braunwyn

Guest
I read and considered it. I just do not expect for any scientist to except his life's work was a waste of time.
As best as I can tell, it hasn't been her life's work. She compiled data and put together a meta-analysis of sorts. Correct me if I'm wrong on that. The scietists that actually supplied her with some of this data disagreed with her interpetation of their data. This cannot be ignored. And to add, when scietists yelp over poor peer-reviewing processes, it's usually a big deal. At least within the scientific community.

They are going to "prove" the person proving them wrong interpreted the data wrong and thus the wrongness of his wrongness was completely wrong so I desire more money for my department so can continue to prove the wrong of those who clearly do not understand the information I collected to show how wrong they were.
First of all it's she, not a he. Second, if you collect data, create a manuscript, publish, and then have it cited erroneously, it's going to cause alarm or at the very least be annoying. Frankly, it's a matter of common sense and ethics from where I sit. When I use another scientist's work in one of my projects, and if I'm not clear on something, I just pop him/her an email for clarification (providing the paper is somewhat recent). If what has been noted is true, and the original authors took issue with her interpretation of THEIR work, than that is something that cannot be brushed aside.

As I noted pages ago IRT to the petition, if one roach is found, there's bound to be a thousand in the wall. This compromises the integrity of the source, hence that section of the vid, and probably the vid in its entirety.
 
Upvote 0

chaim

Veteran
Jan 25, 2005
1,994
137
✟25,371.00
Faith
Other Religion
You may want to change what you read, because it seems that your sources are grossly misleading you. No, Mann's diagram was not disproved by anyone. It was suggested that the statistical method Mann used had a tendency to exaggerate the 'hockey stick' shape. To make sure this was not influencing the data, the National Academies reanalyzed Manns data using a several different statistical techniques (that are not prone to the hockey stick shape) and found the same results. You will notice that the plot of two millenia of temperature I presented earlier has the hockey stick shape (and in fact it includes Mann's data) but is drawn from ten independent data sources. As for the NASA temperature record, if you had read the link I posted you would have noticed that the data was confirmed by NOAA, which is a totally independent agency from NASA.

You still seem to be confused about the climate science and climate policy. Whether or not climate change is occurring is in no way affected by the policy to address climate change. Kyoto has nothing to do with whether or not climate change is occurring, it is a response to climate change. If you have a problem with Kyoto or carbon credits, that is fine, but it does not in anyway undermine the scientific basis of anthropogenic climate change.

You are being overly dramatic about cattle reducing the world to cinders, no one has made that claim. Domestic cattle are a source of methane, but overall they are a much smaller contribution to green house gasses than the combustion of fossil fuels. While methane from cattle contributes to the greenhouse effect, it is but a small part.


I do not go to the IPCC or Nova, nor do I seek out CATO. I read a lot. I come across all kinds of information, some of it even from Nova. But, I do not gulp it down and believe everything I am told. I compare new information with old and draw MY own conclusions. Years ago I read an article about the amount of buffalo in north America found by the first European explorers. Herds went from horizon to horizon. They found huge swathes of grassland reduced to dirt and poo where these giant herds moved thru. I have seen on Nova about how elepants could be found in greater numbers in the last century. Marlin Perkins told me as a kid (man I am old) about the worlds critters were more abundant in times past. Then I read how the raising of cattle will reduce the world to an ashen cinder due to methane.

What do cows have in common with buffalo, elephants, zebras and puffins? They all eat, poo, pass gas, exhale, die and make more cattle, buffalo, elephants, zebras and puffins. All of which causes methane and carbon dioxide. Since no-one has proven a greater number of cattle, pigs, and chickens than buffalo, elephants, zebras and puffins of the past. Then I blew this guy off as another gloom and doomer trying to elbow his way to the government tit.




And Mann's hockey stick was dis-proven by some-one else using the scientific method. You can also prove that NASA proved that NASA was right. Wow, I just can not believe NASA would work overtime to prove they are not wrong. The NAS gets most of their funding form let us see, oh yea the government, NAS and NASA have no dog in this fight.



Thousands of people die each year due to electrical shock. Are you willing to go down to the river and bet your clothes on a rock to wash them? How about running that thing you sit in front of? Are you going to hook a generator to a bike and pedal while you type?

As I said before, Kyoto does not cover China. Are you willing to spend trillions on carbon security? Are you willing to go to war to stop China form burning dirty coal?


 
  • Like
Reactions: Saving Hawaii
Upvote 0

romanov

Senior Veteran
Jul 6, 2006
3,409
188
61
Alaska
✟26,926.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
You may want to change what you read, because it seems that your sources are grossly misleading you. No, Mann's diagram was not disproved by anyone. It was suggested that the statistical method Mann used had a tendency to exaggerate the 'hockey stick' shape. To make sure this was not influencing the data, the National Academies reanalyzed Manns data using a several different statistical techniques (that are not prone to the hockey stick shape) and found the same results. You will notice that the plot of two millenia of temperature I presented earlier has the hockey stick shape (and in fact it includes Mann's data) but is drawn from ten independent data sources. As for the NASA temperature record, if you had read the link I posted you would have noticed that the data was confirmed by NOAA, which is a totally independent agency from NASA.

You may want to change what you read.

Start here then here.
These people are really off their bean. They seem to be saying even though Mann's work just throws the MWP and LIA out the window does not mean it is not true. What about verifiable and repeatable?

You still seem to be confused about the climate science and climate policy. Whether or not climate change is occurring is in no way affected by the policy to address climate change. Kyoto has nothing to do with whether or not climate change is occurring, it is a response to climate change. If you have a problem with Kyoto or carbon credits, that is fine, but it does not in anyway undermine the scientific basis of anthropogenic climate change.

How in the wide world of sports do you separate them? You have the little minions of gloom and doom spewing forth their prophecies about how my steak or car is killing children in Africa and global politicians chomping at the bit to use those musing to control me and spend my money.

You are being overly dramatic about cattle reducing the world to cinders, no one has made that claim. Domestic cattle are a source of methane, but overall they are a much smaller contribution to green house gasses than the combustion of fossil fuels. While methane from cattle contributes to the greenhouse effect, it is but a small part.

I was not being overly dramatic. I was slathering on the sarcasm. But it is what these guys are saying. And these guys. And these guys. Well not the cinders part but you get what I mean.

As a side note I did find this. It is good to know other folks are thinking too.
 
Upvote 0

romanov

Senior Veteran
Jul 6, 2006
3,409
188
61
Alaska
✟26,926.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
As best as I can tell, it hasn't been her life's work. She compiled data and put together a meta-analysis of sorts. Correct me if I'm wrong on that. The scietists that actually supplied her with some of this data disagreed with her interpetation of their data. This cannot be ignored. And to add, when scietists yelp over poor peer-reviewing processes, it's usually a big deal. At least within the scientific community.


First of all it's she, not a he. Second, if you collect data, create a manuscript, publish, and then have it cited erroneously, it's going to cause alarm or at the very least be annoying. Frankly, it's a matter of common sense and ethics from where I sit. When I use another scientist's work in one of my projects, and if I'm not clear on something, I just pop him/her an email for clarification (providing the paper is somewhat recent). If what has been noted is true, and the original authors took issue with her interpretation of THEIR work, than that is something that cannot be brushed aside.

As I noted pages ago IRT to the petition, if one roach is found, there's bound to be a thousand in the wall. This compromises the integrity of the source, hence that section of the vid, and probably the vid in its entirety.


First off, I can tell you and the other fellow I have been bantering with in this thread are scientist. You guys just do not get sarcasm. Or maybe it is my sarcasm you do not get. Come to think of it no-one does. Damn, maybe I am not funny. That sucks. I hope I am not another Al Franken.

Point is the guys who put together their interpretation of the work they did are not going to let some-one come along and use it in a way they do not agree with. Whether or not she is right. Scientist are just like any-one else. They are human and do not want to be told they are wrong. The movies of the 1950s where the older scientist sees the error of his ways and admits he is wrong are just that, movies. The young masculine scientist that kills the giant spider in 120 minutes just does not exist. (The giant spider thing is a metaphor.)


 
Upvote 0

Baggins

Senior Veteran
Mar 8, 2006
4,789
474
At Sea
✟22,482.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
UK-Labour
Nir Shaviv = Israeli/American physics professor, carrying out research in the fields of astrophysics and climate science. He is currently an associate professor at the Racah Institute of Physics of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nir_Shaviv

His peer reviewed paper on his evidence.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/physics/pdf/0409/0409123v1.pdf

Here is a link to the Flat Earth Society:

http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/Flatearthsociety.htm

It has members, one of them is bound to have a scientific qualification, ergo the Earth is flat :thumbsup:


Once again if you can find a relevant scientific body that disagrees with global warming I'll be impressed.
 
Upvote 0

Baggins

Senior Veteran
Mar 8, 2006
4,789
474
At Sea
✟22,482.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
UK-Labour
Ho hum, these bits are a bit farther north of France than 22 miles.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckinghamshire

These bits are farther north.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambridgeshire
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northamptonshire

And these bits are a lot farther north.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lincolnshire

I got these form the article which had you read it, it would have been plain to you. Here is the quote;

"To date the research has identified the remains of seven Romano-British vineyards - four in Northamptonshire, one in Cambridgeshire, one in Lincolnshire and one in Buckinghamshire."

I have also read elsewhere that the Romans were growing grapes as far north as Scotland. This article goes on to state;

"In Roman times, Britain had a slightly warmer climate than now; and, with 500 to 600mm of rain a year, Northamptonshire is at the lower end of the British precipitation range, which would have meant fewer fungal problems. The area would therefore have been suitable for grape production."



From what I have read it was not a case of desire, but the quantity and quality of the grapes.



Well from the map it shows most of the wine vineyards are in the south of France. I do not know a lot about grapes but I am sure there a strains that grow better in one place than another. I would not doubt some of those strains were not around in the times that Roman occupied Briton.



I do not deny that there are other climates. You got tropical, sub-tropical, mountian, arctic, rainy, dry, etc.. I do not deny the plant as a whole has warmed 3/10th of a degree. I just know from what I have read and know to be true that Man Made Global Warming is a hoax.

Well in that case you have probably failed to understand the evidence, some people are just not cut out for understanding complex scientific problems perhaps you are one of them.

You have signally failed to understand that grapes have been grown in the UK since their introduction by the Romans and that the decline in British wine making was more to do with changing British tastes and cheap imports than an inability to make wine from British grapes.

Now that desire to make British wine is back Britain, once again, has a thriving trade in viticulture. This isn't due to the fact that the earth is warming but due to a desire by Britons to make wine.



South facing, I wonder what is in the sky above a south facing wall? Must be something hot.

Correct, it is the sun. Vinyards world wide face south if possible, that allows wine to be commercially produced as far North as Leeds in the UK. With the right sort of situation I don't doubt wine could be made from Scottish grapes. Soft fruits are grown in abundance in the Tayside area, But the lack of good soil types on the hillsides would probably scupper vine growing.



Never going to be ideal for some sorts of wine making,

No one ever claimed it would be

Can't say I am a big wine drinker, but if I can find it I will see if wife likes it.

British White, Rose and sparkling wines can be excellent. I have yet to find an excellent british red wine because the growing season isn't long enough.

I have to say I am yet to work out what point you are trying to make with your claims about viticulture in the UK.

Are you trying to say that grapes can not be grown? Doubtful as that flies in the face of reality.

You appear to accept that the Earth is warming but deny and anthropic drive, in which case I fail to see the value in arguing that viticulture hasn't existed in the UK because grapes, at certain times, couldn't be grown here.

Can you enlighten me as to your point, if you have one?
 
Upvote 0

Baggins

Senior Veteran
Mar 8, 2006
4,789
474
At Sea
✟22,482.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
UK-Labour
I do not go to the IPCC or Nova, nor do I seek out CATO. I read a lot. I come across all kinds of information, some of it even from Nova. But, I do not gulp it down and believe everything I am told. I compare new information with old and draw MY own conclusions.

This is probably where you are going wrong. You are probably not as bright as yo think you are, which of us is, and are coming to erroneous conclusions based on your inability to assemble the data you are reading coherently.

That is why the intelligent person looking for information outside their area of expertise looks to see what the consensus is amongst people within that area of expertise.

In this case every single relevant body in the world accepts a man made component to global warming.

The fact that you have rejected this moves me not in the slightest, especially as you have obviously rejected it because you don't like some proffered political solutions to the problem rather than any understanding of the science.

The hubris of untrained people who value their own opinions above the consensus of the scientific establishment is baffling but often amusing.
 
Upvote 0
B

Braunwyn

Guest
First off, I can tell you and the other fellow I have been bantering with in this thread are scientist. You guys just do not get sarcasm. Or maybe it is my sarcasm you do not get. Come to think of it no-one does. Damn, maybe I am not funny. That sucks. I hope I am not another Al Franken.

lol

Point is the guys who put together their interpretation of the work they did are not going to let some-one come along and use it in a way they do not agree with. Whether or not she is right. Scientist are just like any-one else. They are human and do not want to be told they are wrong. The movies of the 1950s where the older scientist sees the error of his ways and admits he is wrong are just that, movies. The young masculine scientist that kills the giant spider in 120 minutes just does not exist. (The giant spider thing is a metaphor.)

It wasn't just one author though. It was 13 and that's cause for discussion. Lets forgo sci-fi and the egos of scientists and discuss the refutations by the original authors. I know I could stand to learn a thing or two about climate science/research. The gripe is that Baliunas 1. used data that accounted for changes in moisture, not temperature. 2. It's stated that she didn't account for differences in regional and hemispheric temp anomolies, and from what I can tell by reading all these dicussions, that's problematic. Finally, 3. she and Soon reconstructed past temps by using proxy evidence that isn't capable of resolving decadal trends. So, rather than just stating that it's an honest matter of interpretation that could go either way, I'll do some reading of the original articles and come back and post what I find with questions.
 
Upvote 0

chaim

Veteran
Jan 25, 2005
1,994
137
✟25,371.00
Faith
Other Religion
This is pretty indicative of how these debates usually go. One side provides links to highly respected scientific institutes and publications with reams of actual data and research (such as the National Academies). The other side provides links to blogs, political think tanks and personal web pages which cite data such as the Canterbury tales. If, as you claim that Mann data is so bad, it should be easy to point out which line in the following figure (that has the Mann data and 9 other temperature reconstructions) is the dreaded 'hockey stick' data:

2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png



You may want to change what you read.

Start here then here.
These people are really off their bean. They seem to be saying even though Mann's work just throws the MWP and LIA out the window does not mean it is not true. What about verifiable and repeatable?



How in the wide world of sports do you separate them? You have the little minions of gloom and doom spewing forth their prophecies about how my steak or car is killing children in Africa and global politicians chomping at the bit to use those musing to control me and spend my money.



I was not being overly dramatic. I was slathering on the sarcasm. But it is what these guys are saying. And these guys. And these guys. Well not the cinders part but you get what I mean.

As a side note I did find this. It is good to know other folks are thinking too.
 
Upvote 0

joebudda

Newbie
Mar 10, 2004
9,137
319
53
Off The Grid
✟33,419.00
Faith
Atheist
Presentation by Warren Meyer, of climate-skeptic.com, at the California Regional Council of Rural Counties at South Lake Tahoe in September, 2008. The presentation is called "Don't Panic -- A Critique of Catastrophic Man-Made Global Warming Theory." Focuses on a number of topics, including the lack of real evidence of anthropogenic climate change as well as the use of positive feedback in models to create catastrophic forecasts.

Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Part 5
Part 6
Part 7
 
Upvote 0
B

Braunwyn

Guest
Point is the guys who put together their interpretation of the work they did are not going to let some-one come along and use it in a way they do not agree with.
From what I've gathered, the issue is that Soon and Baliunas (SB03) state that recent hemispheric-scale warmth is not unprecendented in the context of the past millennium based on data that is not necessarily temp related (when attempting to discern past temps) and data confined to a specific region, rather than several regions. If I'm wrong on this, please correct me. I'm only going to address one of the points made, though the articles I'll link evaluate all 3 that lay at the basis of criticism of SB03's work.

Here's my summary of a couple of articles I've read. Scientists have to use proxy indicators (tree rings, corals, ice cores, lake sediments) to reconstruct patterns of climate change because instrumental data for mean surface temp is only available for the past 150 years. Studies have focussed on the norther hemisphere because there's more data available compared to southern hemisphere data.

Different variables have been used to draw inferences regarding past regional temp changes from proxy records. One indicator used by SB03 is hydrological indicators. The relationship between hydrological variability and temp is well understood for the particular region, Europe. The objection to SB03's use of the relationship between temp and hydrological variability is that it shouldn't be confused with an assumption that hydrological influences can be litterally equated with with temp influences assessing past climate. In short, yes there is a relationship but that doesn't lend to utilizing the data to determine past climate. *disclaimer* correct me if I have this wrong.

SB03 state that a warm anomaly can be classified as warm, wet, or dry relative to 20th century conditions. Scientists that object to using this criteria as determinants of temp state that such criteria "could be used to define any period of climate as 'warm' or 'cold', and thus makes no meaningful contribution to discussions of past climate change. If this is the case, than why use the data in such a way? What am I missing IRT this particular critism. It seems reasonable enough to me, although given that I'm not well-versed in climate science, I may be missing the mark here.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/02/a-new-take-on-an-old-millennium/

http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/shared/articles/eos03.pdf
 
Upvote 0

Baggins

Senior Veteran
Mar 8, 2006
4,789
474
At Sea
✟22,482.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
UK-Labour
Presentation by Warren Meyer, of climate-skeptic.com, at the California Regional Council of Rural Counties at South Lake Tahoe in September, 2008. ]

What are his academic credentials in Climatology?

No, can that, as I said before you can pretty much find individuals with some scientific credential that will espouse practically any crackpot idea.

I will be impressed when you provide a relevant scientific body that disagrees with AGW.

Until then posting the outpourings of cranks is just wasting your time.

When scientists form a consensus they are usually correct - it is reality that the Earth is warming and it is certain that we are having an effect on that warming.

All that is in doubt is how much of the warming we are responsible for and what we do about.
 
Upvote 0

Carey

Contributor
Aug 17, 2006
9,624
161
60
Texas
✟33,339.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Politics
US-Others
Skeptical Scientists Urge World To ‘Have the Courage to Do Nothing' At UN Conference
BALI, Indonesia - An international team of scientists skeptical of man-made climate fears promoted by the UN and former Vice President Al Gore, descended on Bali this week to urge the world to "have the courage to do nothing" in response to UN demands.
[FONT=times new roman,times]Lord Christopher Monckton, a UK climate researcher, had a blunt message for UN climate conference participants on Monday. [/FONT]
[FONT=times new roman,times]"Climate change is a non-problem. The right answer to a non-problem is to have the courage to do nothing," Monckton told participants. [/FONT]
[FONT=times new roman,times]"The UN conference is a complete waste of our time and your money and we should no longer pay the slightest attention to the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,)" Monckton added. ([/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]LINK[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]) [/FONT]
[FONT=times new roman,times]Monckton also noted that the UN has not been overly welcoming to the group of skeptical scientists. [/FONT]
[FONT=times new roman,times]"UN organizers refused my credentials and appeared desperate that I should not come to this conference. They have also made several attempts to interfere with our public meetings," Monckton explained. [/FONT]
[FONT=times new roman,times]"It is a circus here," agreed Australian scientist Dr. David Evans. Evans is making scientific presentations to delegates and journalists at the conference revealing the latest peer-reviewed studies that refute the UN's climate claims. [/FONT]
[FONT=times new roman,times]"This is the most lavish conference I have ever been to, but I am only a scientist and I actually only go to the science conferences," Evans said, noting the luxury of the tropical resort. (Note: An analysis by Bloomberg News on December 6 found: "Government officials and activists flying to Bali, Indonesia, for the United Nations meeting on climate change will cause as much pollution as 20,000 cars in a year." - LINK) [/FONT]
[FONT=times new roman,times]Evans, a mathematician who did carbon accounting for the Australian government, recently converted to a skeptical scientist about man-made global warming after reviewing the new scientific studies. ([/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]LINK[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]) [/FONT]
[FONT=times new roman,times]"We now have quite a lot of evidence that carbon emissions definitely don't cause global warming. We have the missing [human] signature [in the atmosphere], we have the IPCC models being wrong and we have the lack of a temperature going up the last 5 years," Evans said in an interview with the Inhofe EPW Press Blog. Evans authored a November 28 2007 paper "Carbon Emissions Don't Cause Global Warming." ([/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]LINK[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]) [/FONT]
[FONT=times new roman,times]Evans touted a new peer-reviewed study by a team of scientists appearing in the December 2007 issue of the International Journal of Climatology of the Royal Meteorological Society which found "Warming is naturally caused and shows no human influence." ([/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]LINK[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]) [/FONT]
[FONT=times new roman,times]"Most of the people here [at the UN conference] have jobs that are very well paid and they depend on the idea that carbon emissions cause global warming. They are not going to be very receptive to the idea that well actually the science has gone off in a different direction," Evans explained. [/FONT]

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index....ecord_id=C9554887-802A-23AD-4303-68F67EBD151C
 
Upvote 0

Saving Hawaii

Well-Known Member
Sep 6, 2008
3,713
274
38
Chico, CA
✟5,320.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Presentation by Warren Meyer, of climate-skeptic.com, at the California Regional Council of Rural Counties at South Lake Tahoe in September, 2008. The presentation is called "Don't Panic -- A Critique of Catastrophic Man-Made Global Warming Theory." Focuses on a number of topics, including the lack of real evidence of anthropogenic climate change as well as the use of positive feedback in models to create catastrophic forecasts.

Warren Meyer was one of two presentations provided at the CRCRC in South Lake Tahoe (9/08) regarding the subject of global warming. The other presentation was by Ph. D. Joe Nation (a professor in climate change at the University of San Francisco). Compared to a recognized scientist presenting the scientific consensus on global warming, the Warren Meyer report was primarily there to provide a dissenting viewpoint. After all, Meyer isn't a Ph. D. ; he's just a self-pronounced "skeptic", whatever that means.

Yet, once again Joe - I don't think you're taking the time to read your sources. Warren Meyer in his presentation that man-made global warming is real; he's simply skeptical about how significant that man-made global warming is as compared to natural causes. Meyer doesn't make the claim that there isn't anthropogenic global warming - and in the face of a recognized scientist discussing his field of expertise, I really have to think Meyer felt a little like he brought a knife to a gun fight.

And I hate to say this, but the CRCRC isn't a very significant organization, even if it does represent where I live.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Baggins

Senior Veteran
Mar 8, 2006
4,789
474
At Sea
✟22,482.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
UK-Labour
Here are the facts.

If you believe only part of the Bible you will be confused and wrong on the subject.

If you believe all of the Bible you will be able to see what evidence is actually real eveidence and what it points to or not.;)

And if you believe none of the bible you will be able to view the evidence objectively without having to bear in mind what Bronze Age goat herders thought about a problem they could never have conceived of.
 
Upvote 0
T

tanzanos

Guest
And if you believe none of the bible you will be able to view the evidence objectively without having to bear in mind what Bronze Age goat herders thought about a problem they could never have conceived of.

What about Silicon Age People herders (Bible thumpers). Are they aware of the dramatic decrease in the polar ice mass? :confused::doh:
 
Upvote 0

joebudda

Newbie
Mar 10, 2004
9,137
319
53
Off The Grid
✟33,419.00
Faith
Atheist
What about Silicon Age People herders (Bible thumpers). Are they aware of the dramatic decrease in the polar ice mass? :confused::doh:
http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-82026648.html
However, an investigation by scientists who studied the shrinkage and expansion of ice using satellite radars has found that rather than losing about 21 billion tons of ice a year, west Antarctica is accumulating nearly 27 billion tons.


The ice between Canada and southwestern Greenland has reached its highest level in 15 years.
http://sermitsiaq.gl/klima/article30834.ece?lang=EN
 
Upvote 0
T

tanzanos

Guest
http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-82026648.html
However, an investigation by scientists who studied the shrinkage and expansion of ice using satellite radars has found that rather than losing about 21 billion tons of ice a year, west Antarctica is accumulating nearly 27 billion tons.


The ice between Canada and southwestern Greenland has reached its highest level in 15 years.
http://sermitsiaq.gl/klima/article30834.ece?lang=EN

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/view.php?id=33891:bow:
 
Upvote 0