Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff
Elihu » Thu Jan 02, 2014 7:36 pm wrote:how can melting ice cause sea levels to rise (concomitant disaster waaaa!)? water, in the form of ice, occupies a greater volume than same water in the form of water. it's my understanding that there is no landmass under the north polar ice cap. that this ice cap covers thousands (millions?) of square miles and is many miles thick in places. that the southern polar ice cap extends hundreds of miles out into the ocean beyond the antarctic landmass. i know the image of more and more water pouring into the sea causes a preliminary juvenile reaction of "waaaaaaa!". until we realize that it is juvenile to believe that there is more and more water pouring into our oceans. its the same water that's there right now in the form of ice displacing what must be an incredible volume of its liquified brethren. so how if this were to melt, would the sea levels not fall? and fall majorly?
would i be wrong to say "melting faster" or "melting more rapidly" are moronic phrases? didn't high school chemistry demonstrate that short of vaporizing temperatures, ice melts and water freezes at the same constant rate? so if we were to waive a magic wand and make it 50 degrees at both poles tomorrow we could accurately calculate how long it would take the poles to melt? a couple of hundred years? or longer?
tell a big lie. an incredible lie. they'll believe it.
o em gee. try to decide if it's the environment you care about. or some repressed guilt or resentment begging for punishment, because the predators attempting to slip a carbon tax trading system around our necks could give a *&^% about the environment. its the money and deputies they want.
Sounder » Thu Jan 02, 2014 1:45 pm wrote:
Lets see, Dahr Jamail,- He currently works for al-Jazeera English in Doha, Qatar.
Well now, that's a real credibility booster.
But so much detail, he must be one of those real serious kind of 'journalists'.
Sounder » Thu Jan 02, 2014 1:16 pm wrote:A better question to ask would be something like, "Do you think the Fukushima disaster is a greater threat (to the environment and life on planet earth) than are the effects of anthropogenic global climate disruption?"
How bout, you first.
Honestly, I am not terribly well informed about the magnitude of the threat from the radiation leaked from Fukushima. I don't have enough reliable data to assess the threat level. But even if I got reliable data from credible sources I am uncertain how to assess the harm to the environment and life on the planet, let alone how to compare that with the harm from anthropogenic global climate disruption. What metrics are we using?
Ultimately, I think Rory is right when they say , "Climate Change is a short to medium term threat, with extinction level potential consequences." So asking whether Fukushima is a greater threat is like asking whether contracting a potentially life threatening disease is a greater threat than having one's head cut off or whether the fire in the galley of the Titanic is a greater threat than the millions of gallons of water rushing into the hull.
I'll take Dahr Jamail, Guy McPherson, James Hansen, Neil Dawe and NASA, Nature, Science, The IPCC and the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences over Anthony I'm-a-paid-shill-for-exxon-Watts any fucking day. Puhlease.
Sounder » Thu Jan 02, 2014 4:00 pm wrote:Honestly, I am not terribly well informed about the magnitude of the threat from the radiation leaked from Fukushima. I don't have enough reliable data to assess the threat level. But even if I got reliable data from credible sources I am uncertain how to assess the harm to the environment and life on the planet, let alone how to compare that with the harm from anthropogenic global climate disruption. What metrics are we using?
Ultimately, I think Rory is right when they say , "Climate Change is a short to medium term threat, with extinction level potential consequences." So asking whether Fukushima is a greater threat is like asking whether contracting a potentially life threatening disease is a greater threat than having one's head cut off or whether the fire in the galley of the Titanic is a greater threat than the millions of gallons of water rushing into the hull.
OK. now we are getting somewhere, Thanks
I wrote:How about you (Sounder) explain why you think the Fukushima disaster is a greater threat to the environment and life on earth than is anthropogenic global climate disruption first. And while you're at it explain how it is a threat "many orders of magnitude greater."
Defintion of ‘many’
Defintion of ‘Order of Magnitude’
sounder wrote:I wrote:I'll take Dahr Jamail, Guy McPherson, James Hansen, Neil Dawe and NASA, Nature, Science, The IPCC and the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences over Anthony I'm-a-paid-shill-for-exxon-Watts any fucking day. Puhlease.
False equivalency, I never appealed to Anthony in the first place.
Sounder wrote:How about the credibility of Al-jazeera and the go to warmist Guardian, after viewing the fraud and coverup of fraud (facilitated by the dynamic duo) shown by Alice in the Egypt thread?
Oh right, some things just cannot be faked.
Or Hanson endorsing nuclear power, do you go along with him that far?
I suppose also it means nothing that Al-jazeera is located in Qatar, the petrocapital of the world.
I wrote:How about you (Sounder) explain why you think the Fukushima disaster is a greater threat to the environment and life on earth than is anthropogenic global climate disruption first. And while you're at it explain how it is a threat "many orders of magnitude greater."
Defintion of ‘many’
Defintion of ‘Order of Magnitude’
Rory » Thu Jan 02, 2014 3:45 pm wrote: So what if carbon trading is a verifiable scam. The science is real and the implications are of a culture ending danger.
Don't know. You enlighten me.
But yer buddy BenD certainly favors him as a source. Do you care to distance yourself from that or not?
All that seems like so much deflection.
Is that the Anthony Watts who shills for heartlands institute and Exxon?
Why should we listen to a proven liar and oil propagandist like him?
Sounder » Fri Jan 03, 2014 12:25 am wrote:Is that the Anthony Watts who shills for heartlands institute and Exxon?
Why should we listen to a proven liar and oil propagandist like him?
It sounds to me like you feel able to put all responsibility for climate denial on Anthony, -and thereby discredit all questioning?
I don't think so. That is the same way that AD uses Icke, and it's simple purpose is to shut down or inflame discussion.
If that is what you want, you go right ahead.
The more you do it, the more obvious your purpose shows itself to be.
Besides its a cartoon and it is funny that a bunch of warmists hoping to find some spring ice melt to film, for purely scientific reasons no doubt, got caught in shit ton of ice.
And you could laugh too if you were not so dependent on this mind control agenda to keep the salt of your sub-consciousness safely buried.
Watts is a paid propogandist for big oil - he lies for money. End. Of. Fucking. Argument.
Users browsing this forum: Belligerent Savant and 51 guests