Ice Shelf melting...RUNNNNNN!!!

Status
Not open for further replies.

Sin Nombre

Senior Member
Joined
May 21, 2009
Messages
8,394
Reaction score
29,694
virulent propaganda to the contrary. That's how. By corporate interests and those that shill for them.

and those that use you-know-what as a smokescreen for that.
swn?

(I still can't make it appear in capital letters :hmm:)
 

hecube

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 3, 2009
Messages
14,332
Reaction score
23,843
That was the funniest thing I'd heard all day, until two seconds later when I read the rest:



Then that became the funniest thing I'd heard all day.

What are you going to post next?
The amount of fail in these two answers says much about the thick-headedness of some folks around here...
 

KSG_Standard

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2009
Messages
28,726
Reaction score
39,357
I don't get how US citizens still have their heads in the sand regarding this issue when the pentagon is actually working on conflict scenarios caused by climate changes.
It's not that so many have their heads in the sand, it's that so many of the researchers/scientists promoting the idea that AGW is "settled" science have been proven to be be activists...often more so than scientists. There have been more than a decade of alarmist claims, bad models pushed as fact and general douchbaggery by the true believers.

The truth is that the climate is changing...it's always changing. Nobody knows exactly how much man's activities are adding to the change or the rate of change. Anyone that claims otherwise...isn't really interested in science.

This thread is full of people with little to no science background who have already picked a side and they won't be budged from their position no matter what. I'm not a scientist either, so I rely on the data to help me make up my mind. I have a STEM degree, so I'm not lacking completely in the ability to read and understand the issues and the conclusion that I've come to is...I don't know.

The AGW proponents control the peer review process and we have emails from some of the top proponents where they say they'll do whatever they can to keep skeptic's papers from being published. We have groups of proponents and opponents who demonize and attack the credibility of those they disagree with instead of debating them. If you really dig deep, you'll find that there are qualified, intelligent, knowledgeable scientists who are still undecided about man's role in climate change. Their views and their character are attacked by the true believers...they're called shills for big tobacco or shills for the energy companies or they're dismissed because they aren't "climate scientists"...which is really funny, because many of the leading proponents of AGW aren't climate scientists either.:laugh2:

There are dangers in dismissing either viewpoint out of hand. If we are in fact driving climate change by our emission of GHGs, then to dismiss the problem will hurt us all. If we are in fact not the primary driver of climate change, then to dismiss the skeptics and those questioning the science and we make policy decisions based on bad or incomplete science, then we'll all be harmed as well.

Someone brought up DDT earlier in the thread. That's in interesting subject...DDT was banned by lawmakers and regulators and their decision to ban the use of DDT caused millions of innocent people to die from mosquito born diseases. The science that led to the banning of DDT was pretty crappy at best.

One of the key peer reviewed studies on the dangers of DDT was conducted by a scientist who it appears, was determined to prove that DDT was harmful, instead of performing real science to look for the truth. The paper dealt with quail egg shell thinning due to DDT. It turns out that the scientist not only fed quail DDT, but he also fed the subject birds a low calcium diet. His work was peer reviewed as I said, but the reviewers failed to catch (or they ignored) the fact that he was also feeding them a low calcium diet. So many shenanigans went on in the research community and in the policy decisions that everyone lost site of the basic facts...it was the very heavy and indiscriminate use of DDT that was causing the problem...not that DDT was unusable. In fact it wasn't even the DDT, but rather a component called DDE that caused bird egg shells to thin...and it wasn't all birds that suffered...it was primarily raptors that were effected.

When policy makers get involved and gov't money (e.g., tax payer dollars) is being handed out by the billions, things get crazy. The science is one thing...the policy derived from the science is another. Bad science can lead to bad policy.

There are too many activists pretending to do science and too many people in the media, gov't and the public at large, with little to no understanding of science or statistics, basing their worldview on what the activist scientists are publishing and saying.
 

Scooter2112

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2008
Messages
22,628
Reaction score
30,728
The um...'r' word....
I already brought up Festivus yesterday. :D

And Friday is reserved for the Feats of Strength...so here we are. :thumb:

Personally, I'm mostly agnostic, and a huge skeptic of the whole climate change scenario. I guess I'll have to wait out the Friday festivities and talk to whomever is left standing later in the weekend. :cool:
 

Sin Nombre

Senior Member
Joined
May 21, 2009
Messages
8,394
Reaction score
29,694
That was the funniest thing I'd heard all day, until two seconds later when I read the rest:



Then that became the funniest thing I'd heard all day.

What are you going to post next?
Just feeding the troll-feeders. Is is Friday and I have a few more free minutes.

The troll has been fed so much his loaf is going to look like this…

 

Mindfrigg

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2010
Messages
59,849
Reaction score
327,964
Leaded gasoline. Look at the resistance that research encountered. Twenty+ years to prove it was unleaded gasoline causing dangerously high levels. The petroleum industries fought tooth and nail against the conclusions of research they themselves funded. In the mean time the detrimental health effects..which have been known for centuries..grew.

Their position was similar then. Lead is a 'naturally occuring' element. Never mind the sampling of deep sea water/soil and coring of ice samples showed no such levels in the past. Anywhere. And proved that the levels coincided exactly with the advent of leaded fossil fuels.


After becoming illegal...levels dropped accordingly.


You wonder why we're skeptical?
 

Mindfrigg

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2010
Messages
59,849
Reaction score
327,964
I already brought up Festivus yesterday. :D

And Friday is reserved for the Feats of Strength...so here we are. :thumb:

Personally, I'm mostly agnostic, and a huge skeptic of the whole climate change scenario. I guess I'll have to wait out the Friday festivities and talk to whomever is left standing later in the weekend. :cool:
I have no problem with people's beliefs. Just don't use them as proof of something.
 

TLI-Inferno

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
1,257
Reaction score
1,190
Just feeding the troll-feeders. Is is Friday and I have a few more free minutes.

The troll has been fed so much his loaf is going to look like this…

You should open a restaurant called the Troll Shack where trolls can go to be fed.
 

Sin Nombre

Senior Member
Joined
May 21, 2009
Messages
8,394
Reaction score
29,694
The um...'r' word....
I think I got it, Rupert?, no I got it you cautious rogue. It's Friday, the mods are off for the day. Relax.
Well OTOH I guess we wouldn't want this thread to disappear. :hmm:
OK I'll be good, SRSLY. Carry on.
 

Mindfrigg

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2010
Messages
59,849
Reaction score
327,964
Choosing between bad science and bad religion... Looking at consequences over the last two millinea...I'll take bad science most of the time.
 

Engel

Premium Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2009
Messages
7,878
Reaction score
9,760
I have no problem with people's beliefs. Just don't use them as proof of something.
One of the wisest things I ever read on this forum is in my sig. If you're reading this, Thanks River. :thumb:
 

hecube

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 3, 2009
Messages
14,332
Reaction score
23,843
Leaded gasoline. Look at the resistance that research encountered. Twenty+ years to prove it was unleaded gasoline causing dangerously high levels. The petroleum industries fought tooth and nail against the conclusions of research they themselves funded. In the mean time the detrimental health effects..which have been known for centuries..grew.

Their position was similar then. Lead is a 'naturally occuring' element. Never mind the sampling of deep sea water/soil and coring of ice samples showed no such levels in the past. Anywhere. And proved that the levels coincided exactly with the advent of leaded fossil fuels.


After becoming illegal...levels dropped accordingly.


You wonder why we're skeptical?
How about flat Earth? Cigarettes? Evolution?

Resistance to knowledge is mind-boggling.
 

Stevie 202

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2011
Messages
7,665
Reaction score
16,053
The problem is that the by the time we have absolute proof it could be too late. If it isn't already. Healthy skepticism is important. That's true. But the extent should be tempered by the severity of an issue. I'd say this one is severe in it's possible consequences.
This.

Approach it like a medical problem.

Someone is getting sick so the doc comes and looks them over and says, "Well, from the symptoms I'd say it could be A, B or C.
A and C are potentially fatal but we can't know until we run some tests. In the meantime, stop doing X, Y and Z until we can be sure."

Good medicine.
 

Eric Smith

Senior Member
Joined
May 31, 2011
Messages
7,480
Reaction score
8,017
So we're talking about ice that is "melting" in a place that is -70 F. Yup, I can buy that.
 

hecube

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 3, 2009
Messages
14,332
Reaction score
23,843
Anyone read the article before spewing half-baked questions?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.


Latest Threads



Top