The crack in February. Big, huh? (Image by NASA) Scientists announced yesterday that an enormous chunk of the Larsen C ice shelf in Antarctica roughly the size of Delaware has broken off from the rest of the ice sheet, becoming one of the largest icebergs in recorded history. It's over 2,200 square miles in area, weighs a trillion tons, and has a volume double that of Lake Erie, if you want some other "How Goddamn Big Is This" measures. One more comparison: it "consists of almost four times as much ice as the fast melting ice sheet of Greenland loses in a year," according to the Washington Post.
You are repeating a very tired talking point that happens not to be true. The consensus you describe is a political one, not scientific. And don't quote that "97 percent," figure either. That figure is a fabrication created by partisans and repeated by a credulous media. It has been completely, irreversibly debunked. Don't take my word for it. Look it up. You may choose from many sources. Many, many highly credentialed people, far brighter than you or me, do not subscribe to global warming alarmism.
Furthermore, science does not work by consensus. If it did we would still believe in an Earth-centered Universe, and would accept phrenology as a proper diagnostic tool.
Climate is monstrously complex, loaded with uncertainties, and very incompletely understood. Thousands of interlinked, highly dynamic variables contribute to the making of this thing we call climate. Does it not strike you as a tad simplistic to assign so much weight to just one of those variables, one arguably of only minor overall importance?
Habitually using terms like "moron" and "idiot" to describe your ideological opponents says more about you than it does about them. Such behavior reveals you to be an uncivil, judgemental, and intolerant, person, not to mention a sloppy and lazy thinker.
Actually if you follow the logic of flat earth's, it's not a problem. This ginormous bit of ice will simply float to the edge of the earth and fall off. Presto, no sea level rising! No problem!
I think that economic growth wouldn't really go down from building renewables. Consider - coal is a finite resource (same for oil elsewhere) so continuing as if it will never run out is, not to put too fine a point on it, stupid and bound to end in an economic crash when the resource is effectively gone. How's that for economic growth? Of course, with your way you don't have to explain words like "finite" and get into "yes, really, we'll run out" arguments with your Hen-stuck-in-the-Foxhouse relatives and associates.
The Koch Brothers and the GOP thank you for your service to their grubby little cause of creating confusion about "global warming alarmism" to use your pathetic right-wing talking point.
Hmm - huge iceberg breaks off of Antarctica, biggest recorded. What could have caused this? What does this discussion remind me of? Oh, I know!In the 90s I remember reading obits for the cause of death (pneumonia, Kaposi's, like that) for various celebs and guessing whether they were AIDs related. No one died of AIDs though, due to the nature of that disease. It was always an infection of some kind that ran rampant because the primary illness had shut down the immune system, allowing the secondary infection to kill the host. My next question for climate change deniers is 'if you or your loved one has pneumonia, do you turn down treatment on the grounds that it is not AIDs related and therefore No Big Deal?'
For all of you out there that are pushing the party line (Republican) about climate change, global warming and such really just shut up. That would be people like you S Snell. I know people and have worked with people in this for some 15 years and you are blowing smoke out of your ass. It is as simple as this. Our atmosphere is warming due to carbon emissions. The ocean being cooler will try to absorb the heat. As a consequence it too will heat up causing ice to melt. So I must ask S Snell if they have any idea of how the second law of thermo dynamics works. Well do you? Please explain it. I gave you a huge clue. Can you actually pull an answer out of your Einstein like brain and tell me how it works? If you look it up it should tell you just why ice is rapidly melting in places where it did not before. Have you looked at the arctic ice pack in the last few years? Yes S Snell this is all normal, nothing to see here move along. You are an idiot.
There's a tour boat (highly recommended) out of Seward, AK where they scoop fragments of glacial ice out of the water and offer it to guests who are interested in having thousand-year-old ice in their drinks.
It looks like humanity is doomed. I'm glad I didn't have kids, and don't have nieces or nephews. I do, however, have some lovely cousins and hope they have a planet fit to live on, along with all the lovely children/grandchildren of the Wonketteers.
The fact that one consensus sometimes replaces another does not mean that science does not work by consensus. If it did, we would not know whether or not to believe in an Earth-centered universe or in phrenology as a proper diagnostic tool. But here's a demonstrable fact: you don't have the slightest idea how science or logical argument work.
You are repeating a very tired talking point that happens not to be true. The consensus you describe is a political one, not scientific. And don't quote that "97 percent," figure either. That figure is a fabrication created by partisans and repeated by a credulous media. It has been completely, irreversibly debunked. Don't take my word for it. Look it up. You may choose from many sources. Many, many highly credentialed people, far brighter than you or me, do not subscribe to global warming alarmism.
Furthermore, science does not work by consensus. If it did we would still believe in an Earth-centered Universe, and would accept phrenology as a proper diagnostic tool.
Climate is monstrously complex, loaded with uncertainties, and very incompletely understood. Thousands of interlinked, highly dynamic variables contribute to the making of this thing we call climate. Does it not strike you as a tad simplistic to assign so much weight to just one of those variables, one arguably of only minor overall importance?
Habitually using terms like "moron" and "idiot" to describe your ideological opponents says more about you than it does about them. Such behavior reveals you to be an uncivil, judgemental, and intolerant, person, not to mention a sloppy and lazy thinker.
Actually if you follow the logic of flat earth's, it's not a problem. This ginormous bit of ice will simply float to the edge of the earth and fall off. Presto, no sea level rising! No problem!
I think that economic growth wouldn't really go down from building renewables. Consider - coal is a finite resource (same for oil elsewhere) so continuing as if it will never run out is, not to put too fine a point on it, stupid and bound to end in an economic crash when the resource is effectively gone. How's that for economic growth? Of course, with your way you don't have to explain words like "finite" and get into "yes, really, we'll run out" arguments with your Hen-stuck-in-the-Foxhouse relatives and associates.
Ah, a climate change denier.
The Koch Brothers and the GOP thank you for your service to their grubby little cause of creating confusion about "global warming alarmism" to use your pathetic right-wing talking point.
PS: You're a moron and an idiot!
Hmm - huge iceberg breaks off of Antarctica, biggest recorded. What could have caused this? What does this discussion remind me of? Oh, I know!In the 90s I remember reading obits for the cause of death (pneumonia, Kaposi's, like that) for various celebs and guessing whether they were AIDs related. No one died of AIDs though, due to the nature of that disease. It was always an infection of some kind that ran rampant because the primary illness had shut down the immune system, allowing the secondary infection to kill the host. My next question for climate change deniers is 'if you or your loved one has pneumonia, do you turn down treatment on the grounds that it is not AIDs related and therefore No Big Deal?'
The hot air emanating from his pie hole would melt it in days
At least we a place to put all us old folks now. Health care solved.
For all of you out there that are pushing the party line (Republican) about climate change, global warming and such really just shut up. That would be people like you S Snell. I know people and have worked with people in this for some 15 years and you are blowing smoke out of your ass. It is as simple as this. Our atmosphere is warming due to carbon emissions. The ocean being cooler will try to absorb the heat. As a consequence it too will heat up causing ice to melt. So I must ask S Snell if they have any idea of how the second law of thermo dynamics works. Well do you? Please explain it. I gave you a huge clue. Can you actually pull an answer out of your Einstein like brain and tell me how it works? If you look it up it should tell you just why ice is rapidly melting in places where it did not before. Have you looked at the arctic ice pack in the last few years? Yes S Snell this is all normal, nothing to see here move along. You are an idiot.
100%. almost literally!
They haven't stopped Lord Dampnut from saying anything.They sure have stopped Lord Dampnut from doing things.
One example: that Navy ship (see!) that was supposed to be menacing North Korea was actually in a completely different ocean, steaming the other way.
Lord Dampnut could not move the ship to where he wanted it to be, just because it would be better for him.
Sorry, my default tone is sarcasm. It often does not translate into text.
There's a tour boat (highly recommended) out of Seward, AK where they scoop fragments of glacial ice out of the water and offer it to guests who are interested in having thousand-year-old ice in their drinks.
Don't tell Donnie.
So what's the cause? Pent-up horniness for another planet?
If your pets can't go, give it a pass. There's something hinky about it.
https://www.youtube.com/wat...
It looks like humanity is doomed. I'm glad I didn't have kids, and don't have nieces or nephews. I do, however, have some lovely cousins and hope they have a planet fit to live on, along with all the lovely children/grandchildren of the Wonketteers.
The fact that one consensus sometimes replaces another does not mean that science does not work by consensus. If it did, we would not know whether or not to believe in an Earth-centered universe or in phrenology as a proper diagnostic tool. But here's a demonstrable fact: you don't have the slightest idea how science or logical argument work.