First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next  Last
Post Reply Antarctica may be approaching "unstoppable" collapse.
8927 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / Ark-La-Tex
Offline
Posted 5/18/17
Banned
21752 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
53 / M / In
Offline
Posted 5/18/17 , edited 5/18/17
But the GOP said there was no such thing as Global Warming that means
Fake Antarctica!!!!!!
14690 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Online
Posted 5/18/17
Let it burn.
11419 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Winnipeg, MB.
Offline
Posted 5/18/17

uncletim wrote:

But the GOP said there was no such thing as Global Warming that means
Fake Antarctica!!!!!!


You know for people who hate refugees so much, between how pro-war and anti-sustainability they are they sure seem to like making them.
Posted 5/18/17 , edited 6/28/17
Oh of course
Just like how California was supposed to be underwater by 2000 and NYC by 2015



Stop making promises you can't keep, its breaking my heart
Posted 5/18/17 , edited 5/21/17

Amyas_Leigh wrote:
Oh of course
Just like how California was supposed to be underwater by 2000 and NYC by 2015
Stop making promises you can't keep, its breaking my heart


Just because some special on ABC hinted at these things being possible doesn't mean squat when it comes to climate change. It'd be like me complaining that Back to the Future broke my heart because I don't have a hoverboard.

Maybe you just need to stop getting talking points from poor sources, man.
Banned
416 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 5/18/17 , edited 5/21/17
Good.. maybe there is more oil there that we can drill for down there. We can also send refugees there to live once it thaw's out a bit.
Posted 5/18/17 , edited 5/21/17

ninjitsuko wrote:



Just because some special on ABC hinted at these things being possible doesn't mean squat when it comes to climate change. It'd be like me complaining that Back to the Future broke my heart because I don't have a hoverboard.

Maybe you just need to stop getting talking points from poor sources, man.


There aren't any non 'poor sources' when it comes to climate alarmist cultists

All those islands that were supposed to be under by 2015 as said by the United Nations... never happened. Is the UN a 'poor source' to you?

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2005/oct/12/naturaldisasters.climatechange1

Warming schmorming, a climate researcher told me all I needed to know about the REAL global cooling back in '75!
https://www.scribd.com/doc/225798861/Newsweek-s-Global-Cooling-Article-From-April-28-1975

From a climate 'scientist' in 2000:
Snowfall is a thing of the past!
https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2015/11/snowfalls-are-now-just-a-thing-of-the-past-the-independent.pdf
Banned
21752 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
53 / M / In
Offline
Posted 5/18/17 , edited 5/21/17

ninjitsuko wrote:


Amyas_Leigh wrote:
Oh of course
Just like how California was supposed to be underwater by 2000 and NYC by 2015
Stop making promises you can't keep, its breaking my heart


Just because some special on ABC hinted at these things being possible doesn't mean squat when it comes to climate change. It'd be like me complaining that Back to the Future broke my heart because I don't have a hoverboard.

Maybe you just need to stop getting talking points from poor sources, man.


Come on dude everyone knows this whole climate change thing is a vast conspiracy started by Al Gore. China and 99% of the worlds scientist to enforce change to ummmm make the world a better place to live in I guess,,,,,,,,,,,Those brainy bastards how dare they want a better world for our childern
10758 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
34 / M / People's Republic...
Offline
Posted 5/18/17

ninjitsuko wrote:


Amyas_Leigh wrote:
Oh of course
Just like how California was supposed to be underwater by 2000 and NYC by 2015
Stop making promises you can't keep, its breaking my heart


Just because some special on ABC hinted at these things being possible doesn't mean squat when it comes to climate change. It'd be like me complaining that Back to the Future broke my heart because I don't have a hoverboard.

Maybe you just need to stop getting talking points from poor sources, man.


For others: This what they are referring to:
http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/scott-whitlock/2015/06/12/flashback-abcs-08-prediction-nyc-under-water-climate-change-june

The thing is: this is the mainstream media. That's how they roll. And, to paraphrase Mika: It's their job to tell people what to think.

That's problematic.
10758 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
34 / M / People's Republic...
Offline
Posted 5/18/17 , edited 5/20/17

AppleFart wrote:

Good.. maybe there is more oil there that we can drill for down there. We can also send refugees there to live once it thaw's out a bit.


I look forward to buying oceanfront property in Antarctica. Grilled penguin for dinner
Posted 5/18/17 , edited 5/21/17

Amyas_Leigh wrote:
There aren't any non 'poor sources' when it comes to climate alarmist cultists

All those islands that were supposed to be under by 2015 as said by the United Nations... never happened. Is the UN a 'poor source' to you?

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2005/oct/12/naturaldisasters.climatechange1


Yep, you're going to need to use a better, more up-to-date source than 2005. Dr. Bogardi actually updated his predictions in 2007 (Source). As for the United Nations, they also changed how they looked at climate change. They started the "Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action under the Convention" (AWG-LCA).

Again, try to get your talking points from better sources. "Watsupwiththat" is just another right-wing/anti-science website that I would expect you to link to anyway.


Amyas_Leigh wrote:
Warming schmorming, a climate researcher told me all I needed to know about the REAL global cooling back in '75!
https://www.scribd.com/doc/225798861/Newsweek-s-Global-Cooling-Article-From-April-28-1975


This is mostly true. The difference is that we're still debating whether or not we, as humans, are impacting the speed of climate change or not. Ignoring the possibility is no more, or less, absurd than claiming that it's all 100% true. Science and Mathematics are both "living facts" - data that can be correct one minute and incorrect the next, given enough additional data points that support another claim.

The issue is that I think it's asinine to think "Oh hey, it's some bullshit since it's not bulletproof in its argument!" - in the like mind, I think the same about "Humans are the only source to climate change!" type of statements. Those kinds of statements are for those who only see things as "black or white" in terms of contrasting opinions with no in-between logic for adaptability.
23007 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / Oppai Hell
Offline
Posted 5/18/17 , edited 5/21/17
To be honest, the mainstream media gets their sources from academia, and hopefully we do not say they are "biased" to the point of falsifying conclusions from peer reviewed studies. The general conclusion is that climate change caused by humans is possible and is happening, and the world is amazingly already susceptible to extreme changes from just a couple of degrees. Climate change is also a naturally occurring phenomenon, but both can lead to drastic environmental changes that humans and animals will have to adapt to. In any case, predictions like this are sometimes not accurate. They have to account for many factors that borders on omniscience. Claiming to have a "scientific degree" outside of said field and state you know more than they do is illogical, because you have not studied for the discipline for the purpose of research.
5134 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 5/18/17 , edited 5/21/17
I wish sincere climate alarmists would do at least a little research before posting - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_calving .

Regarding Antarctica as a whole, the ice there is hundreds of thousands if not millions of years old even though it has been much warmer in the past. I would like to post the images from the following website, but don't know how to format them to the correct size. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/09/hockey-stick-observed-in-noaa-ice-core-data/

Somehow I am not worried about the less then 1 Kelvin we have warmed coming out of the Little Ice Age.

Ice core analysis has been around since the 1950's so it has been reasonably cross checked, especially in comparing cores from Greenland with those from Antarctica. Here is a link that gives some background. http://www.antarcticglaciers.org/glaciers-and-climate/ice-cores/ice-core-basics/

48328 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
31 / M
Offline
Posted 5/18/17 , edited 5/18/17

jugrnot007 wrote:

I wish sincere climate alarmists would do at least a little research before posting - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_calving .

Regarding Antarctica as a whole, the ice there is hundreds of thousands if not millions of years old even though it has been much warmer in the past. I would like to post the images from the following website, but don't know how to format them to the correct size. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/09/hockey-stick-observed-in-noaa-ice-core-data/

Somehow I am not worried about the less then 1 Kelvin we have warmed coming out of the Little Ice Age.

Ice core analysis has been around since the 1950's so it has been reasonably cross checked, especially in comparing cores from Greenland with those from Antarctica. Here is a link that gives some background. http://www.antarcticglaciers.org/glaciers-and-climate/ice-cores/ice-core-basics/



"Wishes alarmists would do sincere research" then posts a wikipedia article that is basically irrelevant to global warming denial. Unless you were trying to prove that calving is happening more often due to shoreline warming?
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.