Debate, and discuss, just dont Bore me.

For the last 10 years or so, we have had a drumbeat of experts telling us that man is causing global warming.  And the point to different facts to support their theory.  Altho there is no empiracal evidence to support their theory that it is man doing the damage, they still do a drum beat waring of a world wide catastrophy, ignoring the fact that the biggest factor has always and is the Sun.

So this year, the experts found, what?  The Greenland Icepack is thickening!

Greenland's icecap has thickened slightly in recent years despite wide predictions of a thaw triggered by global warming, a team of scientists says.

So now maybe some sanity is returned to the debate, right?  You are naive!

However, they said that the thickening seemed consistent with theories of global warming, blamed by most experts on a build-up of heat-trapping gases from burning fossil fuels in power plants, factories and cars.

SO thickening ice packs are consistent with global warming?

Ok, then how do they then incorporate this scare into their new theory: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3922579.stm

Now, amid some of the most hostile conditions anywhere on the planet, Carl Boggild and his team have recorded falls as dramatic as 10 metres a year - in places the ice is dropping at a rate of one metre a month.

But the feeling of cold was ironic - it is the rise in air temperatures recorded here that is at least partly responsible for the sudden acceleration of the melting.

SO just 2 years ago, the global warming was causing a catastrophic melting of the Greenland ice sheet, but not it is causing another catastrophic thickening of the ice sheet?

It does not take an Einstein to realize that they dont know what the hell they are talking about.  But as new data becomes available, instead of asking "why", they merely shoehorn it into their pet theory.  Global Warming.

Any wonder most people are laughing at the scare mongers?  Just 30 years ago, we were headed for a new and catastrophic Ice Age (The Day After Tomorrow was 30 years too late).  Today it is Global Warming.  Tomorrow it will be Global Stabilization that will cause the destruction of the planet.

Yea right.


Comments (Page 2)
2 Pages1 2 
on Oct 23, 2005
I dont know. I would suspect that there are many that can claim that with some honesty.


Like me.
on Oct 23, 2005

Like me.

I think your answers this time would tend to indicate otherwise.

on Oct 23, 2005
lways remember, "An expert is just a man from out of town with a briefcase."


No always remember this...."An ex is a has been and a spert is a drip".
on Oct 23, 2005

No always remember this...."An ex is a has been and a spert is a drip".

Being a mathematician, I can say with some authority and clarity of thought, that X is the Unknown!  Indeputably.

on Oct 23, 2005

They're scientists, not prophets.


If they are scientists, they are supposed to come up with theories.

A theory attempts to explain what will happen based on being an explanation for what did happen.

If something else happens, something that the theory said would not happen, the theory turns out to be incorrect.
on Oct 23, 2005
Again, I call for everyone to RTFA and think about what they're saying:

"Greenland ice-melt 'speeding up'", July 28, 2004
- the margins (i.e., the outer edges) of the ice cap are rapidly retreating
- glaciers are visibly shrinking

"Greenland icecap thickens despite warming", October 21, 2005
- the icecap (i.e., the whole thing) is thickening -- especially at high altitudes (i.e., away from the margins)
- the erroneous assumption was that fast melting at the margins implies fast melting everywhere

A mathematician knows that these types of complex models are pathological depending on their initial and boundary conditions. None of this invalidates the warming models but the initial assumptions and data used to populate them.

These types of problems should be familiar to anyone with 3rd year physics or applied math background.
on Oct 23, 2005
No always remember this...."An ex is a has been and a spert is a drip".

Being a mathematician, I can say with some authority and clarity of thought, that X is the Unknown! Indeputably.


Not always doc. Try ex-husband/wife....that's "not" an unknown ( you "know" how bad they are, that's why they're an ex). That's a has been! Speaking stricly from a mathamatical stand point, you are correct x is unkown and usually what you are trying to solve for.
on Oct 23, 2005
I have a cousin (no lie!) who is actually a bit of an environmental expert (he works for some research agency or another, and has published works on the subjects he's researched).

Some years back, he was involved in a study on how SOUTH AMERICAN RAINFORESTS contribute to global warming! Again, I'm not making this up!

So, there ya go, folks...let'c start hacking down them rainforests. Future generations will thank us.
on Oct 23, 2005
Some years back, he was involved in a study on how SOUTH AMERICAN RAINFORESTS contribute to global warming! Again, I'm not making this up!

Wasn't the issue that cutting down and burning (i.e., slash and burn agriculture) was producing so much smoke as to contribute to the problem?
on Nov 06, 2005

"Greenland ice-melt 'speeding up'", July 28, 2004
- the margins (i.e., the outer edges) of the ice cap are rapidly retreating
- glaciers are visibly shrinking

"Greenland icecap thickens despite warming", October 21, 2005
- the icecap (i.e., the whole thing) is thickening -- especially at high altitudes (i.e., away from the margins)
- the erroneous assumption was that fast melting at the margins implies fast melting everywhere

Why is it so farking hard for you to RTFA.  That is what I said.  They are talking out of both sides of their mouth!

Next they will be claiming that global warming is causing the heartache of psoriasis!

on Nov 06, 2005

Try ex-husband/wife

That wants to be an unknown!  trust me!

on Nov 06, 2005

Some years back, he was involved in a study on how SOUTH AMERICAN RAINFORESTS contribute to global warming! Again, I'm not making this up!

I seem to recall that big todo, altho I have not come across it recently.

on Nov 06, 2005

Wasn't the issue that cutting down and burning (i.e., slash and burn agriculture) was producing so much smoke as to contribute to the problem?

I will have to google it.  Not sure why it was, but that it was was the claim.

2 Pages1 2