No glaciers in Glacier National Park

[dilloduck]

What's more appalling is the willful scaremongering by the neo-Malthusian declinists.

She probably owns a moving company who's motto is---"We'll move you safely to higher ground"

 

[Barb]

What's more appalling is the willful scaremongering by the neo-Malthusian declinists.

LOL! Baffling yourself with BS? It was cute though.

 

[dilloduck]

From 2006: The Threat to the Planet - The New York Review of Books

"[...] How much will sea level rise with five degrees of global warming? Here too, our best information comes from the Earth's history. The last time that the Earth was five degrees warmer was three million years ago, when sea level was about eighty feet higher.

Eighty feet! In that case, the United States would lose most East Coast cities: Boston, New York, Philadelphia, Washington, and Miami; indeed, practically the entire state of Florida would be under water. Fifty million people in the US live below that sea level. Other places would fare worse. China would have 250 million displaced persons. Bangladesh would produce 120 million refugees, practically the entire nation. India would lose the land of 150 million people.

A rise in sea level, necessarily, begins slowly. Massive ice sheets must be softened and weakened before rapid disintegration and melting occurs and the sea level rises. It may require as much as a few centuries to produce most of the long-term response. But the inertia of ice sheets is not our ally against the effects of global warming. The Earth's history reveals cases in which sea level, once ice sheets began to collapse, rose one meter (1.1 yards) every twenty years for centuries. That would be a calamity for hundreds of cities around the world, most of them far larger than New Orleans. Devastation from a rising sea occurs as the result of local storms which can be expected to cause repeated retreats from transitory shorelines and rebuilding away from them.[...]"

The willful ignorance on this subject is appalling.

Yeah ... how all the environuts willfully push for laws to support failing products and services just so they can remain ignorant and sleep easy at night ... even though they really have no clue as to what the science involved actually means.

Most of the science is taught in HS earth science, and reviewed in college most basic general ed. geology requirement. Upper level ecology courses get into more detail, but but at all levels, the textbooks agree. But hey, go back to sleep, everything's fine.

We're trying dammit but you nuts keep yelling WAKE UP AMERICA !!

 

[KittenKoder]

What's more appalling is the willful scaremongering by the neo-Malthusian declinists.

LOL! Baffling yourself with BS? It was cute though.

Um ... no.

The "dire predictions" by these same scientists have not held any mustard at all. Not once. Each decade they move the goal posts to make more predictions ... which eventually fail as well. Then they push for legislation to promote specific products and services by force, which would never succeed on the open market with real competition because they are actually more harmful than beneficial. Seriously ... these "energy efficient" bulbs contain very hazardous chemicals, and breaking one can kill you ... anyone who lets kids even close to these should be locked up for child abuse, but they are now pushing to have them required by law. Corn fuel kills food production, seriously, just for a few autos to go a few miles, but they are pushing that one to. Recycling plants actually cause more pollution compared to other factories, the need for less virgin material only balances it out. Want willfully ignorant, look in the mirror.

 

[eots]

From 2006: The Threat to the Planet - The New York Review of Books

"[...] How much will sea level rise with five degrees of global warming? Here too, our best information comes from the Earth's history. The last time that the Earth was five degrees warmer was three million years ago, when sea level was about eighty feet higher.

Eighty feet! In that case, the United States would lose most East Coast cities: Boston, New York, Philadelphia, Washington, and Miami; indeed, practically the entire state of Florida would be under water. Fifty million people in the US live below that sea level. Other places would fare worse. China would have 250 million displaced persons. Bangladesh would produce 120 million refugees, practically the entire nation. India would lose the land of 150 million people.

A rise in sea level, necessarily, begins slowly. Massive ice sheets must be softened and weakened before rapid disintegration and melting occurs and the sea level rises. It may require as much as a few centuries to produce most of the long-term response. But the inertia of ice sheets is not our ally against the effects of global warming. The Earth's history reveals cases in which sea level, once ice sheets began to collapse, rose one meter (1.1 yards) every twenty years for centuries. That would be a calamity for hundreds of cities around the world, most of them far larger than New Orleans. Devastation from a rising sea occurs as the result of local storms which can be expected to cause repeated retreats from transitory shorelines and rebuilding away from them.[...]"

The willful ignorance on this subject is appalling.

Yeah ... how all the environuts willfully push for laws to support failing products and services just so they can remain ignorant and sleep easy at night ... even though they really have no clue as to what the science involved actually means.

Most of the science is taught in HS earth science, and reviewed in college most basic general ed. geology requirement. Upper level ecology courses get into more detail, but but at all levels, the textbooks agree. But hey, go back to sleep, everything's fine.

and who approve,,selects..and funds..for these text books??

 

[KittenKoder]

Yeah ... how all the environuts willfully push for laws to support failing products and services just so they can remain ignorant and sleep easy at night ... even though they really have no clue as to what the science involved actually means.

Most of the science is taught in HS earth science, and reviewed in college most basic general ed. geology requirement. Upper level ecology courses get into more detail, but but at all levels, the textbooks agree. But hey, go back to sleep, everything's fine.

and who approve,,selects..and funds..for these text books??

See Eots? I told you there is a real conspiracy here ... environuts have been getting away with it too long to.

 

[Barb]

What's more appalling is the willful scaremongering by the neo-Malthusian declinists.

LOL! Baffling yourself with BS? It was cute though.

Um ... no.

The "dire predictions" by these same scientists have not held any mustard at all. Not once. Each decade they move the goal posts to make more predictions ... which eventually fail as well. Then they push for legislation to promote specific products and services by force, which would never succeed on the open market with real competition because they are actually more harmful than beneficial. Seriously ... these "energy efficient" bulbs contain very hazardous chemicals, and breaking one can kill you ... anyone who lets kids even close to these should be locked up for child abuse, but they are now pushing to have them required by law. Corn fuel kills food production, seriously, just for a few autos to go a few miles, but they are pushing that one to. Recycling plants actually cause more pollution compared to other factories, the need for less virgin material only balances it out. Want willfully ignorant, look in the mirror.

Breaking the old ones weren't healthy either, FYI, and as for the indicators for past predictions, the science has been on target and the climate change is speeding up, hence the OP. Ethanol was a bad joke, and it kills engines too. Bush was all for it. The present legislation calls for renewable energy, not more recycling plants, but recycling does serve the purpose of not adding more waste products to the natural sinks. Maybe you could read more, instead of dismissing the valid information available according to your nutroots talking points. Or not.

 

[Barb]

Yeah ... how all the environuts willfully push for laws to support failing products and services just so they can remain ignorant and sleep easy at night ... even though they really have no clue as to what the science involved actually means.

Most of the science is taught in HS earth science, and reviewed in college most basic general ed. geology requirement. Upper level ecology courses get into more detail, but but at all levels, the textbooks agree. But hey, go back to sleep, everything's fine.

and who approve,,selects..and funds..for these text books??

Dept. of ed., regents committees, and states (except for college, dept. of ed, professors under the rules of curriculum, and we buy them out of pocket). Didja think it was a conspiracy? Not much has changed in the basics since I got out of high school, back in the covered wagon days.

 

[KittenKoder]

LOL! Baffling yourself with BS? It was cute though.

Um ... no.

The "dire predictions" by these same scientists have not held any mustard at all. Not once. Each decade they move the goal posts to make more predictions ... which eventually fail as well. Then they push for legislation to promote specific products and services by force, which would never succeed on the open market with real competition because they are actually more harmful than beneficial. Seriously ... these "energy efficient" bulbs contain very hazardous chemicals, and breaking one can kill you ... anyone who lets kids even close to these should be locked up for child abuse, but they are now pushing to have them required by law. Corn fuel kills food production, seriously, just for a few autos to go a few miles, but they are pushing that one to. Recycling plants actually cause more pollution compared to other factories, the need for less virgin material only balances it out. Want willfully ignorant, look in the mirror.

Breaking the old ones weren't healthy either, FYI, and as for the indicators for past predictions, the science has been on target and the climate change is speeding up, hence the OP. Ethanol was a bad joke, and it kills engines too. Bush was all for it. The present legislation calls for renewable energy, not more recycling plants, but recycling does serve the purpose of not adding more waste products to the natural sinks. Maybe you could read more, instead of dismissing the valid information available according to your nutroots talking points. Or not.

Um ... the "normal" light bulbs didn't contain a deadly gas ... the only danger you had was cutting yourself on the broken glass, not inhaling toxic fumes.

As for landfills, if you take all the area of all the landfills in the US and put it together, it's about the size of a small town. After one get compacted enough they typically build on it, there are actually a few housing developments on top of old landfills.

You are ignoring valid information and choosing to listen to statistics which were proven false by the scientists not funded by parties with investments in these products which the information is being used to scare people into forcing on everyone.

The reality is this, nature changes all the time, it turns itself on its head to weed out the weaker species, that's how it keeps us all evolving. You can't change that, and you shouldn't stop it, but you can find a way to adapt instead or be driven extinct like all the others. Environuts have chosen extinction for humanity ... well ... do you want that?

 

[Barb]

Most of the science is taught in HS earth science, and reviewed in college most basic general ed. geology requirement. Upper level ecology courses get into more detail, but but at all levels, the textbooks agree. But hey, go back to sleep, everything's fine.

and who approve,,selects..and funds..for these text books??

See Eots? I told you there is a real conspiracy here ... environuts have been getting away with it too long to.

Have you ever Googled Earth? Have you ever seen a giant sign wrapped around it labeled “economy?” I never saw that either, but one of the things learned in business economics classes is that the ecology is a sub-system of the economy. Surely, high school Earth Science would have mentioned this if it were true. This huge argument is taking place about the merits of creationism added to science curriculum, and for better than twenty years those in charge of the economics department have been teaching students the earth is flat.

 

[Oddball]

What's more appalling is the willful scaremongering by the neo-Malthusian declinists.

LOL! Baffling yourself with BS? It was cute though.

The only people doing the baffling are the AGW hoaxers.

 

[Barb]

Um ... no.

The "dire predictions" by these same scientists have not held any mustard at all. Not once. Each decade they move the goal posts to make more predictions ... which eventually fail as well. Then they push for legislation to promote specific products and services by force, which would never succeed on the open market with real competition because they are actually more harmful than beneficial. Seriously ... these "energy efficient" bulbs contain very hazardous chemicals, and breaking one can kill you ... anyone who lets kids even close to these should be locked up for child abuse, but they are now pushing to have them required by law. Corn fuel kills food production, seriously, just for a few autos to go a few miles, but they are pushing that one to. Recycling plants actually cause more pollution compared to other factories, the need for less virgin material only balances it out. Want willfully ignorant, look in the mirror.

Breaking the old ones weren't healthy either, FYI, and as for the indicators for past predictions, the science has been on target and the climate change is speeding up, hence the OP. Ethanol was a bad joke, and it kills engines too. Bush was all for it. The present legislation calls for renewable energy, not more recycling plants, but recycling does serve the purpose of not adding more waste products to the natural sinks. Maybe you could read more, instead of dismissing the valid information available according to your nutroots talking points. Or not.

Um ... the "normal" light bulbs didn't contain a deadly gas ... the only danger you had was cutting yourself on the broken glass, not inhaling toxic fumes.

As for landfills, if you take all the area of all the landfills in the US and put it together, it's about the size of a small town. After one get compacted enough they typically build on it, there are actually a few housing developments on top of old landfills.

You are ignoring valid information and choosing to listen to statistics which were proven false by the scientists not funded by parties with investments in these products which the information is being used to scare people into forcing on everyone.

The reality is this, nature changes all the time, it turns itself on its head to weed out the weaker species, that's how it keeps us all evolving. You can't change that, and you shouldn't stop it, but you can find a way to adapt instead or be driven extinct like all the others. Environuts have chosen extinction for humanity ... well ... do you want that?

Try to stay with me here. Ecologists aren't trying to halt evolution, they are trying to slow down the acceleration caused by humans so our grandchildren don't end up paying with their lives for our hubris. I would really like to hear your reasoning that those efforts will bring us to extinction. It should be a hoot.
And fyi, the "scientists" you're listening to are hired guns for the oil industry, hell bent on squeezing the last drop of peak oil $$ out of your pockets before they're forced to close up shop. They could adapt to new business realities and take advantage of a growth industry instead, but why bother? They'll be dead, and die damned rich, so why would they care?

 

[KittenKoder]

Breaking the old ones weren't healthy either, FYI, and as for the indicators for past predictions, the science has been on target and the climate change is speeding up, hence the OP. Ethanol was a bad joke, and it kills engines too. Bush was all for it. The present legislation calls for renewable energy, not more recycling plants, but recycling does serve the purpose of not adding more waste products to the natural sinks. Maybe you could read more, instead of dismissing the valid information available according to your nutroots talking points. Or not.

Um ... the "normal" light bulbs didn't contain a deadly gas ... the only danger you had was cutting yourself on the broken glass, not inhaling toxic fumes.

As for landfills, if you take all the area of all the landfills in the US and put it together, it's about the size of a small town. After one get compacted enough they typically build on it, there are actually a few housing developments on top of old landfills.

You are ignoring valid information and choosing to listen to statistics which were proven false by the scientists not funded by parties with investments in these products which the information is being used to scare people into forcing on everyone.

The reality is this, nature changes all the time, it turns itself on its head to weed out the weaker species, that's how it keeps us all evolving. You can't change that, and you shouldn't stop it, but you can find a way to adapt instead or be driven extinct like all the others. Environuts have chosen extinction for humanity ... well ... do you want that?

Try to stay with me here. Ecologists aren't trying to halt evolution, they are trying to slow down the acceleration caused by humans so our grandchildren don't end up paying with their lives for our hubris. I would really like to hear your reasoning that those efforts will bring us to extinction. It should be a hoot.
And fyi, the "scientists" you're listening to are hired guns for the oil industry, hell bent on squeezing the last drop of peak oil $$ out of your pockets before they're forced to close up shop. They could adapt to new business realities and take advantage of a growth industry instead, but why bother? They'll be dead, and die damned rich, so why would they care?

No, it's time you stay with logic for a change. Science should NEVER come from one source, period. That's what's wrong with the scientific community lately and why nothing new has been found. Also ... no, not all "other" scientists are paid by the oil companies, that's another fearmongering myth told by the environuts. The truth is that most are actually self paid or work on donations from the "lesser" sources, they are ignored only because they are not funded by the environut sheep. Many scientists have come forward after retiring to say that they were paid off by said environmental companies, told to publish what they wanted or lose their funding. Others were fired when they disagreed with them. Reality is too complex for just one finding to be truth, science cannot be so simplified. Basically, when the earth finally does decide to change enough that we cannot survive, we will have nothing to protect ourselves from those inevitable changes, because it will be wasted for environmentalism by people who are too ignorant to look at all the science.

The fact is, the earth is changing, as it always has and always will do, these changes have always caused mass extinctions, and the changes continually occur closer to each other. That is fact, that is not science it is history. Now, add that fact to the findings of many scientists, the changes are those which will cause huge amounts of destruction to humanity, the need is not to try to stop something we cannot stop, but to find a way to survive it. Oil companies are of no concern for one major reason, oil is limited and running out. There isn't much left and at the rate we are burning it, it won't last much more than 20 to 50 years. Oh well, we need a new source, that's for certain, but the ones that environmentalists are pushing for will destroy our food supply as well as the world economies. Does this sound like the environmentalists care about life? No they don't, they care about the same thing the oil companies do, money, period.

 

[Barb]

Um ... the "normal" light bulbs didn't contain a deadly gas ... the only danger you had was cutting yourself on the broken glass, not inhaling toxic fumes.

As for landfills, if you take all the area of all the landfills in the US and put it together, it's about the size of a small town. After one get compacted enough they typically build on it, there are actually a few housing developments on top of old landfills.

You are ignoring valid information and choosing to listen to statistics which were proven false by the scientists not funded by parties with investments in these products which the information is being used to scare people into forcing on everyone.

The reality is this, nature changes all the time, it turns itself on its head to weed out the weaker species, that's how it keeps us all evolving. You can't change that, and you shouldn't stop it, but you can find a way to adapt instead or be driven extinct like all the others. Environuts have chosen extinction for humanity ... well ... do you want that?

Try to stay with me here. Ecologists aren't trying to halt evolution, they are trying to slow down the acceleration caused by humans so our grandchildren don't end up paying with their lives for our hubris. I would really like to hear your reasoning that those efforts will bring us to extinction. It should be a hoot.
And fyi, the "scientists" you're listening to are hired guns for the oil industry, hell bent on squeezing the last drop of peak oil $$ out of your pockets before they're forced to close up shop. They could adapt to new business realities and take advantage of a growth industry instead, but why bother? They'll be dead, and die damned rich, so why would they care?

No, it's time you stay with logic for a change. Science should NEVER come from one source, period. That's what's wrong with the scientific community lately and why nothing new has been found. Also ... no, not all "other" scientists are paid by the oil companies, that's another fearmongering myth told by the environuts. The truth is that most are actually self paid or work on donations from the "lesser" sources, they are ignored only because they are not funded by the environut sheep. Many scientists have come forward after retiring to say that they were paid off by said environmental companies, told to publish what they wanted or lose their funding. Others were fired when they disagreed with them. Reality is too complex for just one finding to be truth, science cannot be so simplified. Basically, when the earth finally does decide to change enough that we cannot survive, we will have nothing to protect ourselves from those inevitable changes, because it will be wasted for environmentalism by people who are too ignorant to look at all the science.

The fact is, the earth is changing, as it always has and always will do, these changes have always caused mass extinctions, and the changes continually occur closer to each other. That is fact, that is not science it is history. Now, add that fact to the findings of many scientists, the changes are those which will cause huge amounts of destruction to humanity, the need is not to try to stop something we cannot stop, but to find a way to survive it. Oil companies are of no concern for one major reason, oil is limited and running out. There isn't much left and at the rate we are burning it, it won't last much more than 20 to 50 years. Oh well, we need a new source, that's for certain, but the ones that environmentalists are pushing for will destroy our food supply as well as the world economies. Does this sound like the environmentalists care about life? No they don't, they care about the same thing the oil companies do, money, period.

" Senator James Inhofe, chairman of the Committee on Environment and Public Works, describes global warming as "the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people" and has used aggressive tactics, including a lawsuit to suppress a federally funded report on climate change, to threaten and intimidate scientists." (Hansen, 2006, Pg. 4, Para 6)
The Threat to the Planet - The New York Review of Books

 

[KittenKoder]

Try to stay with me here. Ecologists aren't trying to halt evolution, they are trying to slow down the acceleration caused by humans so our grandchildren don't end up paying with their lives for our hubris. I would really like to hear your reasoning that those efforts will bring us to extinction. It should be a hoot.
And fyi, the "scientists" you're listening to are hired guns for the oil industry, hell bent on squeezing the last drop of peak oil $$ out of your pockets before they're forced to close up shop. They could adapt to new business realities and take advantage of a growth industry instead, but why bother? They'll be dead, and die damned rich, so why would they care?

No, it's time you stay with logic for a change. Science should NEVER come from one source, period. That's what's wrong with the scientific community lately and why nothing new has been found. Also ... no, not all "other" scientists are paid by the oil companies, that's another fearmongering myth told by the environuts. The truth is that most are actually self paid or work on donations from the "lesser" sources, they are ignored only because they are not funded by the environut sheep. Many scientists have come forward after retiring to say that they were paid off by said environmental companies, told to publish what they wanted or lose their funding. Others were fired when they disagreed with them. Reality is too complex for just one finding to be truth, science cannot be so simplified. Basically, when the earth finally does decide to change enough that we cannot survive, we will have nothing to protect ourselves from those inevitable changes, because it will be wasted for environmentalism by people who are too ignorant to look at all the science.

The fact is, the earth is changing, as it always has and always will do, these changes have always caused mass extinctions, and the changes continually occur closer to each other. That is fact, that is not science it is history. Now, add that fact to the findings of many scientists, the changes are those which will cause huge amounts of destruction to humanity, the need is not to try to stop something we cannot stop, but to find a way to survive it. Oil companies are of no concern for one major reason, oil is limited and running out. There isn't much left and at the rate we are burning it, it won't last much more than 20 to 50 years. Oh well, we need a new source, that's for certain, but the ones that environmentalists are pushing for will destroy our food supply as well as the world economies. Does this sound like the environmentalists care about life? No they don't, they care about the same thing the oil companies do, money, period.

" Senator James Inhofe, chairman of the Committee on Environment and Public Works, describes global warming as "the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people" and has used aggressive tactics, including a lawsuit to suppress a federally funded report on climate change, to threaten and intimidate scientists." (Hansen, 2006, Pg. 4, Para 6)
The Threat to the Planet - The New York Review of Books

You said it, not me, federally funded ...

 

[Oddball]

Try to stay with me here. Ecologists aren't trying to halt evolution, they are trying to slow down the acceleration caused by humans so our grandchildren don't end up paying with their lives for our hubris. I would really like to hear your reasoning that those efforts will bring us to extinction. It should be a hoot.
And fyi, the "scientists" you're listening to are hired guns for the oil industry, hell bent on squeezing the last drop of peak oil $$ out of your pockets before they're forced to close up shop. They could adapt to new business realities and take advantage of a growth industry instead, but why bother? They'll be dead, and die damned rich, so why would they care?

The answer came before the reasoning asked for: Hubris.

 

[AVG-JOE]

I'm gonna have to chime in with Barb and Chris on this one... Sort of.

The evidence for something is pretty irrefutable. The ice fields of planet earth are declining. Any who still denies the evidence has reasons to do so other than their eyes.

But what do it mean?

Is it man-made global warming? Is it cyclical climate change? Is it a springboard into the next ice age? The short answer to all these contradictory questions is... maybe.

Nobody knows, but something is up. Only a fool doesn't see a gathering storm because 'today is not a good day for rain'.

So what's the average American Joe to do?

The best he can with what he knows. Burning less fuel for whatever reason is good for my wallet, but I can't quit driving in this economy and remain self sufficient.

Just because something doesn't make sense in todays marketplace doesn't mean it doesn't make sense. For example... wind energy.

Did you know that Henry Ford went bankrupt twice trying to introduce the automobile to the world?

-Joe

 

[Oddball]

I'm gonna have to chime in with Barb and Chris on this one... Sort of.

The evidence for something is pretty irrefutable. The ice fields of planet earth are declining. Any who still denies the evidence has reasons to do so other than their eyes.

But what do it mean?

Is it man-made global warming? Is it cyclical climate change? Is it a springboard into the next ice age? The short answer to all these contradictory questions is... maybe.

Nobody knows, but something is up. Only a fool doesn't see a gathering storm because 'today is not a good day for rain'.

You think throwing a few more vestal virgins into the volcano can change the weather??

 

[AVG-JOE]

I'm gonna have to chime in with Barb and Chris on this one... Sort of.

The evidence for something is pretty irrefutable. The ice fields of planet earth are declining. Any who still denies the evidence has reasons to do so other than their eyes.

But what do it mean?

Is it man-made global warming? Is it cyclical climate change? Is it a springboard into the next ice age? The short answer to all these contradictory questions is... maybe.

Nobody knows, but something is up. Only a fool doesn't see a gathering storm because 'today is not a good day for rain'.

You think throwing a few more vestal virgins into the volcano can change the weather??

Nope.

And I'm not going to loose any sleep over what I can't control. Just support what I think is right at any given time and keep an eye on the coast.

-Joe

 

[KittenKoder]

I'm gonna have to chime in with Barb and Chris on this one... Sort of.

The evidence for something is pretty irrefutable. The ice fields of planet earth are declining. Any who still denies the evidence has reasons to do so other than their eyes.

But what do it mean?

Is it man-made global warming? Is it cyclical climate change? Is it a springboard into the next ice age? The short answer to all these contradictory questions is... maybe.

Nobody knows, but something is up. Only a fool doesn't see a gathering storm because 'today is not a good day for rain'.

You think throwing a few more vestal virgins into the volcano can change the weather??

Nope.

And I'm not going to loose any sleep over what I can't control. Just support what I think is right at any given time and keep an eye on the coast.

-Joe

I live right next to the Sound ... if anything the water levels are lower than normal here, I can see the water line on the pier pylons even at high tide.