What's Happening to Glacier Ice - Hard, Gritty Evidence

[bstreep]

1) I AM a scientist (not practicing) - a Molecular Biologist.

2) The primary reason I'm not a practicing biologist is the whole "follow the money" philosophy I was taught in graduate school:

3) It's all about the money - don't even begin to think otherwise.

4) I did a class project on "Global Cooling" in college. I keep this on my photobucket just for discussions like this. It's from Newsweek, 1975. They were actually considering spreading coal dust on the icecap! Seriously.



http://www.cruisersforum.com/attachm...bc548cbacc.jpg

5) Yes, the climate IS changing. It has been for many millions of years.

6) Hey, what happened to the big stink about the "Ozone Hole"???

7) And finally, see #3: FOLLOW THE MONEY!

[avb3]

Some posts have been removed as they did not further the discussion. Please keep any political or sarcastic comments to yourself.

As mentioned, this thread is being moderated more heavily than most, so please keep that in mind with your posts.

Thanks.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by avb3

For those who want to see a discussion on the many issues that climate change deniers throw up, including the Mann hockey stick and the University of East Anglia CRU email issues, I would suggest looking at this site.

Avb3, my argument is that if anthropogenic climate change is so case closed, then why the manipulation of data and models? Shouldn't pure, unadulterated facts be enough? People who question anthropogenic climate change shouldn't be classed as "climate change deniers" either. I personally have no problem accepting that climate change is occurring, just as it has for the last 4.5 billion years.

I am, on the other hand, skeptical when it comes to climate scientists whom, to be frank, have a vested interest in presenting bad news. I cringe when I hear that CO2 is a "pollutant", that Pacific islands and other low coastal areas are being inundated by rising see levels when in fact, if they are sinking at all, they are sinking due to subduction, that we're going to have both more floods and droughts, more hurricanes, yada yada yada.

And the craziest thing of all is even if it is man made, what are we going to do about it? Stop burning fossil fuels? That's not going to happen unless we are all prepared to return to the stone age. Even then, the imbalance will remain thanks to our ongoing removal of vast tracks of CO2 chomping forests the world over.

[DeepFrz]

I am, on the other hand, skeptical when it comes to climate scientists whom, to be frank, have a vested interest in presenting bad news.

I wonder on the other hand if oil companies and many politicians might not have a bigger vested interest in this issue?

[bewitched]

I understand that the global climate has been changing since long before our species walked the planet.

I understand that carbon dioxide is produced from the combustion of fossil fuels, that methane is released from landfill sites and grazing animals and that nitrious oxide is released from fertilizer.

I understand that the production of these gases is increasing exponentially and it is doing so as a direct result of the increase in the human population and our behaviour.

I understand that if the concentration these gases in the earth's atmosphere is increased, less heat escapes into space and more heat is retained.

I don't understand what proportion of the current increase in green house gases in the atmosphere is due to natural phenomena and how much is due to our behaviour.

So I could ignore the issue or I could try to reduce the amount of green house gases that I produce.

[avb3]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Avb3, my argument is that if anthropogenic climate change is so case closed, then why the manipulation of data and models? Shouldn't pure, unadulterated facts be enough? People who question anthropogenic climate change shouldn't be classed as "climate change deniers" either. I personally have no problem accepting that climate change is occurring, just as it has for the last 4.5 billion years.

I am, on the other hand, skeptical when it comes to climate scientists whom, to be frank, have a vested interest in presenting bad news. I cringe when I hear that CO2 is a "pollutant", that Pacific islands and other low coastal areas are being inundated by rising see levels when in fact, if they are sinking at all, they are sinking due to subduction, that we're going to have both more floods and droughts, more hurricanes, yada yada yada.

And the craziest thing of all is even if it is man made, what are we going to do about it? Stop burning fossil fuels? That's not going to happen unless we are all prepared to return to the stone age. Even then, the imbalance will remain thanks to our ongoing removal of vast tracks of CO2 chomping forests the world over.

Your points are valid, however, I would suggest you take a look at the linked site I provided, as all of your points are discussed. You will have to make the decision if you agree with their analysis or not, but the science is referenced.

I used to be involved for many years in a decision making process that required scientific analysis. Our operating principle was to use the precautionary principle; in other words, if we were not sure, err on the side of caution, rather than aggravate a situation.

I cannot help but think that using the precautionary principle when it comes to global climate change, that we as humans, as well as the ecosystems we depend on, are better off than if we ignore it and do nothing.

[GaryMayo]

Originally Posted by Andrew Troup

It's MUCH worse than we could have imagined.

Please, for the sake of a world beyond tomorrow, watch this:

James Balog: Time-lapse proof of extreme ice loss | Video on TED.com

If everyone who watched it persuaded two others to do the same, it seems to me that we might achieve a critical mass of informed concern, to leave behind a different world for generations to come.

Better still would be to watch the film "Chasing Ice". I saw it last night. When it finished, the entire audience was frozen in shocked, silent immobility for a minute or more.

Climate change is not just natural in its causes. Governments around the world are admitting to cloud seeding, and they are doing this to modify weather, among other reasons. Artificial clouds made from aluminum particles, are holding in the Earth's heat, and effecting ice caps around the world. (see video)

This Original Post is a great way wake people up to changes that you can see over your heads in the strange clouds, in most every part of the globe.

As this is a video response to the video posted in the OP. Thank you for not deleting it. In my video post, is the answer to why the ice caps are melting at the alarming rate.

This video is made by scientists, politicians and concerned people around the world.

What in the World Are They Spraying? (Full Length) - YouTube

[bewitched]

Originally Posted by bstreep

1)

6) Hey, what happened to the big stink about the "Ozone Hole"???

They banned the production of CFCs which caused it apparently:
Whatever Happened to the Ozone Hole?

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by avb3

Your points are valid, however, I would suggest you take a look at the linked site I provided, as all of your points are discussed. You will have to make the decision if you agree with their analysis or not, but the science is referenced.

I'm sure skeptical science contains a lot of information, but it barely hides its AGW PROPOGANDA under it's facade.

As soon as I scanned down to the good ol' "CO2 is a pollutant" line, that was enough for me.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by bewitched

They banned the production of CFCs which caused it apparently:
Whatever Happened to the Ozone Hole?

The association between ozone depletion and CFC's was unequivocally proven, and that is the difference between it and AGW, oops sorry, climate change.

[avb3]

Originally Posted by GaryMayo

Climate change is not just natural in its causes. Governments around the world are admitting to cloud seeding, and they are doing this to modify weather, among other reasons. Artificial clouds made from aluminum particles, are holding in the Earth's heat, and effecting ice caps around the world. (see video)..................

I'm going to leave it in.

Readers should be advised that the first 12 minutes are filled with ominous sounding music, a lot of speculation with many shots from news casts, but no factual information being presented. Perhaps that comes later in the video, but I gave up after 12 minutes of conspiracy theory.

Those with more patience or time then me may want to report back at some point.

[GaryMayo]

Originally Posted by bstreep

1) I AM a scientist (not practicing) - a Molecular Biologist.

2) The primary reason I'm not a practicing biologist is the whole "follow the money" philosophy I was taught in graduate school:

3) It's all about the money - don't even begin to think otherwise.

4) I did a class project on "Global Cooling" in college. I keep this on my photobucket just for discussions like this. It's from Newsweek, 1975. They were actually considering spreading coal dust on the icecap! Seriously.



http://www.cruisersforum.com/attachm...bc548cbacc.jpg

5) Yes, the climate IS changing. It has been for many millions of years.

6) Hey, what happened to the big stink about the "Ozone Hole"???

7) And finally, see #3: FOLLOW THE MONEY!

Millions of years, we have seen change. Some ice is melting away as if there were an oven turned on. This is not a slow gradual change. Look at what is happening today, right now.

As Arctic ice cap melts, a new Cold War - CBS News

Because of the fact this is a sailing forum, and not a political forum, I am done posting in this thread. Anyone interested, watch the video I posted.

[DeepFrz]

avb3, thanks for the link to Skeptical Science.

[Andrew Troup]

I'm not sure it's a compelling argument to point at predictions of natural cooling from three or four decades back. I'll set aside whether a single journalistic effort should be given that much weight; that's a different question.

The worst possible scenario would be if the natural underlying climate trend was currently in a cooling cycle.

That would indicate that things are even worse than they look, because the rates of warming we are seeing would be just a fraction of the anthropogenic component of the trend.

If that was so, when the cooling cycle turns to a warming cycle, and the two warming tendencies became additive instead of subtractive, all bets would be off.

[Andrew Troup]

Bumper sticker slogans like "Follow the Money" fail a simple test:

They deliver whatever answer you want them to, rather than the right answer. It's the "I Ching" effect.


They also, it seems to me, have no place in a sober discussion about scientific data, and the inferences drawn from them.

If these red herrings had never been introduced (always, in my experience, from the same side of the argument), perhaps the people of the world would have arrived at a consensus on the data and the inferences not long after the scientists of the world did.