Why does one polar circle, the Antarctic, have 9 times the ice of the other?

[Crick]

"You've not provided a single link to any respectable scientist"

LMFAO!!!

Translation - if Crick cannot parrot it, it does not exist...

Translation: If no one with an actual science education believes what you believe, the odds of it being an accurate description of the behavior of the Earth's climate are slim-to-none, leaning HEAVILY towards NONE.

What does Co2 have to do with Antarctica having 9 times the ice of the Arctic??

Not much but I bet it's a great deal more than the correlation between plate tectonics and glaciations. And BTW, it's "CO2"

Go ahead, ask your fraudulent heroes that question, since your BEAKED BIRDBRAIN cannot answer it...

That's not the way things work here Whizzo, or anywhere else on planet Earth. If you bring up a new idea (and I guarantee your idea is new) it is your responsibility to provide supporting evidence.

 

[Crick]

" The entire world's temperatures drop during an ice age."


Yes, it does, and it very much depends on the size of the ice age. If you switched land mass Antarctica with water from the center of the Pacific Ocean, you'd warm the planet 25 degrees. None of that changes the facts here...

1. ice ages are continent specific
2. the planet's climate is 100% about WHERE LAND IS
3. CO2 has NOTHING to do with EArth climate Change...

You keep saying these things but you've yet to provide any reason we should believe you. Guess what that leads to? We don't believe you.

PS, first agreeing that glaciations are global and then an inch down the screen saying their "continent-specific" doesn't give us any warm-fuzzies that you've got a grip on what's happening here.

PPS: Just who the fuck are you quoting up there? The construction of your post says that you're quoting yourself. But I'm pretty sure you didn't say that. How about being a big boy and learning how to use the HTML quote function that everyone else here has managed to get down pat?

 

[Crick]

Wikipedia: Ice Age:
An ice age is a period of long-term reduction in the temperature of Earth's surface and atmosphere, resulting in the presence or expansion of continental and polar ice sheets and alpine glaciers. Within a long-term ice age, individual pulses of cold climate are termed "glacial periods" (or alternatively "glacials" or "glaciations" or colloquially as "ice age"), and intermittent warm periods are called "interglacials". Glaciologically, ice age implies the presence of extensive ice sheets in the northern and southern hemispheres.[1] By this definition, we are in an interglacial period—the Holocene—of the ice age that began 2.6 million years ago at the start of the Pleistocene epoch, because the Greenland, Arctic, and Antarctic ice sheets still exist.[2]

References:

1. Imbrie, J.; Imbrie, K.P (1979). Ice ages: solving the mystery. Short Hills NJ: Enslow Publishers. ISBN 978-0-89490-015-0.
2. Gribbin, J.R. (1982). Future Weather: Carbon Dioxide, Climate and the Greenhouse Effect. Penguin. ISBN 0140224599.

Funny, don't see any mention of them being regional and no mention that they might be caused by land near the poles.

 

[Crick]

From the History Channel (asked Google)

An ice age is a period of colder global temperatures and recurring glacial expansion capable of lasting hundreds of millions of years. Thanks to the efforts of geologist Louis Agassiz and mathematician Milutin Milankovitch, scientists have determined that variations in the Earth’s orbit and shifting plate tectonics spur the waxing and waning of these periods. There have been at least five significant ice ages in Earth’s history, with approximately a dozen epochs of glacial expansion occurring in the past 1 million years. Humans developed significantly during the most recent glaciation period, emerging as the dominant land animal afterward as megafauna such as the wooly mammoth went extinct.
An ice age is a period of colder global temperatures that features recurring glacial expansion across the Earth’s surface. Capable of lasting hundreds of millions of years, these periods are interspersed with regular warmer interglacial intervals in which at least one major ice sheet is present. Earth is currently in the midst of an ice age, as the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets remain intact despite moderate temperatures.

These global cooling periods begin when a drop in temperature prevents snow from fully melting in some areas. The bottom layer turns to ice, which becomes a glacier as the weight of accumulated snow causes it to slowly move forward. A cyclical pattern emerges in which the snow and ice traps the Earth’s moisture, fueling the growth of these ice sheets as the sea levels simultaneously drop.

An ice age causes enormous changes to the Earth’s surface. Glaciers reshape the landscape by picking up rocks and soil and eroding hills during their unstoppable push, their sheer weight depressing the Earth’s crust. As temperatures drop in areas adjacent to these ice cliffs, cold-weather plant life is driven to southern latitudes. Meanwhile, the dramatic drop in sea levels enables rivers to carve out deeper valleys and produce enormous inland lakes, with previously submerged land bridges appearing between continents. Upon retreating during warmer periods, the glaciers leave behind scattered ridges of sediment and fill basins with melted water to create new lakes.

Scientists have recorded five significant ice ages throughout the Earth’s history: the Huronian (2.4-2.1 billion years ago), Cryogenian (850-635 million years ago), Andean-Saharan (460-430 mya), Karoo (360-260 mya) and Quaternary (2.6 mya-present). Approximately a dozen major glaciations have occurred over the past 1 million years, the largest of which peaked 650,000 years ago and lasted for 50,000 years. The most recent glaciation period, often known simply as the “Ice Age,” reached peak conditions some 18,000 years ago before giving way to the interglacial Holocene epoch 11,700 years ago.

At the height of the recent glaciation, the ice grew to more than 12,000 feet thick as sheets spread across Canada, Scandinavia, Russia and South America. Corresponding sea levels plunged more than 400 feet, while global temperatures dipped around 10 degrees Fahrenheit on average and up to 40 degrees in some areas. In North America, the region of the Gulf Coast states was dotted with the pine forests and prairie grasses that are today associated with the northern states and Canada.

The origins of ice age theory began hundreds of years ago, when Europeans noted that glaciers in the Alps had shrunk, but its popularization is credited to 19th century Swiss geologist Louis Agassiz. Contradicting the belief that a wide-ranging flood killed off such megafauna as the wooly mammoth, Agassiz pointed to rock striations and sediment piles as evidence of glacier activity from a destructive global winter. Geologists soon found evidence of plant life between glacial sediment, and by the close of the century the theory of multiple global winters had been established.

A second important figure in the development of these studies was Serbian mathematician Milutin Milankovitch. Seeking to chart the Earth’s temperature from the past 600,000 years, Milankovitch carefully calculated how orbital variations such as eccentricity, precession and axial tilt affected solar radiation levels, publishing his work in the 1941 book Canon of Insolation and the Ice Age Problem. Milankovitch’s findings were corroborated when technological improvements in the 1960s allowed for the analyzation of deep sea ice cores and plankton shells, which helped pinpoint periods of glaciation.

Along with solar radiation levels, it is believed that global warming and cooling is connected to plate tectonic activity. The shifting of the Earth’s plates creates large-scale changes to continental masses, which impacts ocean and atmospheric currents, and triggers volcanic activity that releases carbon dioxide into the air.

One significant outcome of the recent ice age was the development of Homo sapiens. Humans adapted to the harsh climate by developing such tools as the bone needle to sew warm clothing, and used the land bridges to spread to new regions. By the start of the warmer Holocene epoch, humans were in position to take advantage of the favorable conditions by developing agricultural and domestication techniques. Meanwhile, the mastodons, saber-toothed cats, giant ground sloths and other megafauna that reigned during the glacial period went extinct by its end.

The reasons for the disappearance of these giants, from human hunting to disease, are among the ice age mysteries that have yet to be fully explained. Scientists continue to study the evidence of these important periods, both to gain more insight into the Earth’s history and to help determine future climatic events.
************************************************************************

This one has some plate tectonics mentioned. Unfortunately, they don't mention your version.

 

[LaDexter]

The whole "ice age" theory you and the "Warmers" subscribe to is completely wrong, and the last million years of Earth climate history proves it.

Greenland froze while North America thawed.

The above proves that CO2 has NOTHING TO DO WITH EARTH CLIMATE CHANGE.

Your "science" is to only allow those who PARROT your fraudulent fudgebaking heroes who say Co2 is the cause.

Tell us, birdbrain, how did CO2 melt NA and freeze Greenland AT THE SAME TIME???

FUCKING MORON!!!

 

[Crick]

From University of California at San Diego The Ice Ages

Geologically speaking, we live in a time period of intense climatic change. Since the last 1 million years, our species and our human forebears experienced a dozen or so major glaciations of the northern hemisphere, with the greatest ever occurring around 650,000 years ago. During this period of extreme ice buildup, the ice advanced deep into the Midwest, from its center around Hudson Bay in Canada, and deep into Germany, from its center on the Scandinavian Shield. So much ice collected in these two major regions and several lesser ones that the sea level dropped by some 400 feet and the overall global temperature was lowered by around 5°C (about 9°F). Mammoth, mastodon, wooly rhinoceros, giant bison, camels, horses, and many large predators (cats, wolves, bears) roamed the grasslands well south of the rim of the miles-high ice, both in North America and in Europe. Small bands of humans made a living by hunting and gathering in Africa, and perhaps elsewhere. The glaciation that occurred 650,000 years ago lasted some 50,000 years. It had a profound effect on the landscape, carving great glacial valleys and fjords and lakes, and making moraines and glacial outwash plains around the perimeter of its extent. The greatly lowered sea level allowed rivers to cut deeply into the shelves of the continents and into the edges of the shelves, where the sea floor drops off into the deep ocean. Here canyons could form which would later serve to funnel sediments from the shelf into the deep sea.

Hmm... no mention of your ideas. Where are they hiding?

 

[LaDexter]

Wikipedia: Ice Age:
An ice age is a period of long-term reduction in the temperature of Earth's surface and atmosphere, resulting in the presence or expansion of continental and polar ice sheets and alpine glaciers. Within a long-term ice age, individual pulses of cold climate are termed "glacial periods" (or alternatively "glacials" or "glaciations" or colloquially as "ice age"), and intermittent warm periods are called "interglacials". Glaciologically, ice age implies the presence of extensive ice sheets in the northern and southern hemispheres.[1] By this definition, we are in an interglacial period—the Holocene—of the ice age that began 2.6 million years ago at the start of the Pleistocene epoch, because the Greenland, Arctic, and Antarctic ice sheets still exist.[2]

References:

1. Imbrie, J.; Imbrie, K.P (1979). Ice ages: solving the mystery. Short Hills NJ: Enslow Publishers. ISBN 978-0-89490-015-0.
2. Gribbin, J.R. (1982). Future Weather: Carbon Dioxide, Climate and the Greenhouse Effect. Penguin. ISBN 0140224599.

Funny, don't see any mention of them being regional and no mention that they might be caused by land near the poles.

Translation - BAWK!!!

Polly wanna cracker???



"don't see any mention of them being regional and no mention that they might be caused by land near the poles."

and no mention that 97% of Earth ice today is on the two land masses closest to an Earth pole - BRILLIANT!!!

 

[LaDexter]

cut paste parrot
cut paste parrot
cut paste parrot
cut paste parrot
cut paste parrot
cut paste parrot
cut paste parrot
cut paste parrot

Thanks for "your" insight, Crick...

 

[alpine]

A physics degree, from a butcher shop...

 

[LaDexter]

Answer the question, sub human.

During the past million years, NA thawed while Greenland froze.

WHY?

CO2 was constant during the whole period...

 

[alpine]

I think this where you run away crying.

This whole argument requires a little more than your high school knowledge of levers...

Well, considering the fact that, you couldn't even quote a highschool physics teacher during your whole argument... Maybe that is non-existent either...

Cmon, just tell us which kuku head blog you reading all this bullshit, so we can see the source and see if there is anything credible... so this thing doesn't go for pages...

 

[Crick]

The whole "ice age" theory you and the "Warmers" subscribe to is completely wrong, and the last million years of Earth climate history proves it.

The Ice Age Theory is not a product of anthropogenic global warming researchers.

Origin of ice age theory
In 1742 Pierre Martel (1706–1767), an engineer and geographer living in Geneva, visited the valley of Chamonix in the Alpsof Savoy.[3][4] Two years later he published an account of his journey. He reported that the inhabitants of that valley attributed the dispersal of erratic boulders to the glaciers, saying that they had once extended much farther.[5][6] Later similar explanations were reported from other regions of the Alps. In 1815 the carpenter and chamois hunter Jean-Pierre Perraudin (1767–1858) explained erratic boulders in the Val de Bagnes in the Swiss canton of Valais as being due to glaciers previously extending further.[7] An unknown woodcutter from Meiringen in the Bernese Oberland advocated a similar idea in a discussion with the Swiss-German geologist Jean de Charpentier (1786–1855) in 1834.[8] Comparable explanations are also known from the Val de Ferret in the Valais and the Seeland in western Switzerland[9] and in Goethe's scientific work.[10] Such explanations could also be found in other parts of the world. When the Bavarian naturalist Ernst von Bibra (1806–1878) visited the Chilean Andes in 1849–1850, the natives attributed fossil moraines to the former action of glaciers.[11]

Meanwhile, European scholars had begun to wonder what had caused the dispersal of erratic material. From the middle of the 18th century, some discussed ice as a means of transport. The Swedish mining expert Daniel Tilas (1712–1772) was, in 1742, the first person to suggest drifting sea ice in order to explain the presence of erratic boulders in the Scandinavian and Baltic regions.[12] In 1795, the Scottish philosopher and gentleman naturalist, James Hutton (1726–1797), explained erratic boulders in the Alps by the action of glaciers.[13] Two decades later, in 1818, the Swedish botanist Göran Wahlenberg (1780–1851) published his theory of a glaciation of the Scandinavian peninsula. He regarded glaciation as a regional phenomenon.[14]

Only a few years later, the Danish-Norwegian geologist Jens Esmark (1762–1839) argued a sequence of worldwide ice ages. In a paper published in 1824, Esmark proposed changes in climate as the cause of those glaciations. He attempted to show that they originated from changes in Earth's orbit.[15] During the following years, Esmark's ideas were discussed and taken over in parts by Swedish, Scottish and German scientists. At the University of Edinburgh Robert Jameson (1774–1854) seemed to be relatively open to Esmark's ideas, as reviewed by Norwegian professor of glaciology Bjørn G. Andersen (1992).[16] Jameson's remarks about ancient glaciers in Scotland were most probably prompted by Esmark.[17] In Germany, Albrecht Reinhard Bernhardi (1797–1849), a geologist and professor of forestry at an academy in Dreissigacker, since incorporated in the southern Thuringian city of Meiningen, adopted Esmark's theory. In a paper published in 1832, Bernhardi speculated about former polar ice caps reaching as far as the temperate zones of the globe.[18]

In 1829, independently of these debates, the Swiss civil engineer Ignaz Venetz (1788–1859) explained the dispersal of erratic boulders in the Alps, the nearby Jura Mountains, and the North German Plain as being due to huge glaciers. When he read his paper before the Schweizerische Naturforschende Gesellschaft, most scientists remained sceptical.[19] Finally, Venetz convinced his friend Jean de Charpentier. De Charpentier transformed Venetz's idea into a theory with a glaciation limited to the Alps. His thoughts resembled Wahlenberg's theory. In fact, both men shared the same volcanistic, or in de Charpentier's case rather plutonistic assumptions, about the earth's history. In 1834, de Charpentier presented his paper before the Schweizerische Naturforschende Gesellschaft.[20] In the meantime, the German botanist Karl Friedrich Schimper (1803–1867) was studying mosses which were growing on erratic boulders in the alpine upland of Bavaria. He began to wonder where such masses of stone had come from. During the summer of 1835 he made some excursions to the Bavarian Alps. Schimper came to the conclusion that ice must have been the means of transport for the boulders in the alpine upland. In the winter of 1835 to 1836 he held some lectures in Munich. Schimper then assumed that there must have been global times of obliteration ("Verödungszeiten") with a cold climate and frozen water.[21] Schimper spent the summer months of 1836 at Devens, near Bex, in the Swiss Alps with his former university friend Louis Agassiz (1801–1873) and Jean de Charpentier. Schimper, de Charpentier and possibly Venetz convinced Agassiz that there had been a time of glaciation. During Winter 1836/7 Agassiz and Schimper developed the theory of a sequence of glaciations. They mainly drew upon the preceding works of Venetz, de Charpentier and on their own fieldwork. Agassiz appears to have been already familiar with Bernhardi's paper at that time.[22] At the beginning of 1837, Schimper coined the term "ice age" ("Eiszeit") for the period of the glaciers.[23] In July 1837 Agassiz presented their synthesis before the annual meeting of the Schweizerische Naturforschende Gesellschaft at Neuchâtel. The audience was very critical and some opposed to the new theory because it contradicted the established opinions on climatic history. Most contemporary scientists thought that the earth had been gradually cooling down since its birth as a molten globe.[24]

In order to overcome this rejection, Agassiz embarked on geological fieldwork. He published his book Study on Glaciers ("Études sur les glaciers") in 1840.[25] De Charpentier was put out by this, as he had also been preparing a book about the glaciation of the Alps. De Charpentier felt that Agassiz should have given him precedence as it was he who had introduced Agassiz to in-depth glacial research.[26] Besides that, Agassiz had, as a result of personal quarrels, omitted any mention of Schimper in his book.[27]

All together, it took several decades until the ice age theory was fully accepted by scientists. This happened on an international scale in the second half of the 1870s following the work of James Croll, including the publication of Climate and Time, in Their Geological Relations in 1875, which provided a credible explanation for the causes of ice ages.[28]

Greenland froze while North America thawed.

Prove it.

The above proves that CO2 has NOTHING TO DO WITH EARTH CLIMATE CHANGE.

What the fuck is wrong with you? You act as if the ice ages are the only instance of climate change this planet has undergone. AND NO ONE HAS EVER SUGGESTED THAT THE ICE AGES WERE CAUSED BY CHANGES IN CO2 LEVELS. It certainly produces feedback effects in response to temperature changes, but the primary cause has been widely accepted for quite some time to be the Milankovich cycles. Are you familiar with those? For someone arguing what you argue, you ought to be.

Your "science" is to only allow those who PARROT your fraudulent fudgebaking heroes who say Co2 is the cause.

Tell us, birdbrain, how did CO2 melt NA and freeze Greenland AT THE SAME TIME???

First tell us where you got the idea that the term "climate change" refers exclusively to ice age glaciations, then you can tell us where you got the idea that anyone believes CO2 is responsible for all climate change or for glaciation at all. And if you think you can take down all of mainstream science by accusing me of "parroting", you're more stupid than you already appear - and that's not easy.

FUCKING MORON!!!

You sound as if you'd like to get into a serious insult contest, but I have to advise you, I always try not to do that with children.

 

[LaDexter]

"You act as if the ice ages are the only instance of climate change this planet has undergone. "

Continent specific ice ages are 100% of what drives Earth climate change, which is why you and every other sub human parrot won't answer the question about Greenland/NA during the past million years.

Antarctic Circle is 50 degrees F colder than the Arctic, and puts 9 times the ice into the oceans. If the Antarctic Circle had just ocean there, it would be ice free, 60 F warmer than it is today, and the planet as a whole would be warmer with higher sea levels.


Your parroted "evidence" is laughable. It fails to explain the data, just as the three and only three "sinking" islands do not support the idea of sea level rise, especially after one notices all three on the lip of the Pacific Ring of Fire.

So go ahead and parrot 400 more definitions of "ice age" from clueless idiots who cannot explain the basic data of the past million years, and hence since all your birdbrain does is parrot them, you cannot explain it either...

 

[LaDexter]

And here we go....

For the 500th time - did Greenland freeze while NA thawed...


NA glacier position 1 mil years ago here...





Ancient Greenland Was Actually Green


"The DNA is proof that sometime between 450,000 and 800,000 years ago, much of Greenland was especially green and covered in a boreal forest "

 

[LaDexter]

LOL!!!

My map of NA glaciers shows Greenland frozen, but the DATA from GREENLAND PROVES JUST THE OPPOSITE.

The map needs to show a GREEN GREENLAND, because that's what it was 1 mil years ago - GREEN.

 

[Crick]

"You act as if the ice ages are the only instance of climate change this planet has undergone."

WHO ARE YOU QUOTING HERE?

Continent specific ice ages are 100% of what drives Earth climate change, which is why you and every other sub human parrot won't answer the question about Greenland/NA during the past million years.

You keep repeating this claim but have presented no evidence that any ice age was "continent-specific". Nothing I looked up on ice ages made any such observation.

Antarctic Circle is 50 degrees F colder than the Arctic, and puts 9 times the ice into the oceans. If the Antarctic Circle had just ocean there, it would be ice free, 60 F warmer than it is today, and the planet as a whole would be warmer with higher sea levels.

Let's pretend we could lift the entire Antarctic continent off the surface and turn it into a small moon around Jupiter. Explain what would happen that would raise the Earth's temperature. I know of one process that might, but I want to hear your thoughts.

Your parroted "evidence" is laughable.

To what evidence are you referring?

It fails to explain the data

What data?

just as the three and only three "sinking" islands do not support the idea of sea level rise, especially after one notices all three on the lip of the Pacific Ring of Fire.

I do not base my idea of rising sea level on the situation in the Marshall Islands. I base it on this data from the world's leading experts on sea level:

So go ahead and parrot 400 more definitions of "ice age" from clueless idiots who cannot explain the basic data of the past million years, and hence since all your birdbrain does is parrot them, you cannot explain it either...

I'm quoting people with PhDs who've spent their lives studying these topics professionally. So far, the only person you've quoted on this board is me. If you actually want people to take your word over the near universal opinions of mainstream science on these topics, you need to up your game about 5 orders of magnitude. Right now, I'm afraid you're nothing but a bad joke

 

[LaDexter]

"You keep repeating this claim but have presented no evidence that any ice age was "continent-specific"."

Actually, I have four...

Antarctica and Greenland TODAY are both ice ages (as is Ellesmere Island, but that is small)

The "North American Ice Age" clearly was... on North America while Greenland was GREEN, outing the truth that an ice age continent can sit right next to another continent that is not frozen at all (today it is Greenland frozen while NA is not)...

Google

take your pick...

And long before Antarctica had glaciers, Australia was on the South Pole...

Ice Age Australia


So yeah, ice ages are continent specific, as are the TWO today...

When glacier ice pushes out into the oceans to a depth deeper than the glacier is tall, the glacier floats. Stress from wind, current, and temperature changes will eventually cause that glacier piece to break off and become an ice berg. That is why ice ages are continent specific.

 

[LaDexter]

"I do not base my idea of rising sea level on the situation in the Marshall Islands. I base it on this data from the world's leading experts on sea level:"

There is a difference between DATA and FUDGE, but your church doesn't allow you to notice it....

Rise of sea levels is 'the greatest lie ever told'


"The reason why Dr Mörner, formerly a Stockholm professor, is so certain that these claims about sea level rise are 100 per cent wrong is that they are all based on computer model predictions, whereas his findings are based on "going into the field to observe what is actually happening in the real world"."

and THAT is the difference between DATA and FUDGE.

 

[Old Rocks]

"Very, very close to 100% of all the Earth's PhD scientists believe it. "

Once again, you parrot falsehoods religiously. 37,000 scientists, many with PhDs, signed a "denialist" statement a decade ago.

I have a degree in Physics.

But PARROTING and DEGREES do not constitute SCIENTIFIC PROOF. That is what I provide, since the truth of Earth climate change is that it is ALL ABOUT WHERE LAND IS and has PRECISELY NOTHING TO DO WITH CO2.

Oh my. You have a degree in physics? LOL You dumb shit, you have proven just the opposite with your posts. I doubt you have a GED. You state CO2 is not a GHG. You also stated that all the atmospheric gases absorb heat energy in one of your posts. You have no degree in anything at all. You are a liar.

By the way, the 37,000 'scientists' that signed the OISM petition were mostly not scientists.

Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine - SourceWatch

In reality, neither Robinson's paper nor OISM's petition drive had anything to do with the National Academy of Sciences, which first heard about the petition when its members began calling to ask if the NAS had taken a stand against the Kyoto treaty. Robinson was not even a climate scientist. He was a biochemist with no published research in the field of climatology, and his paper had never been subjected to peer review by anyone with training in the field. In fact, the paper had never been accepted for publication anywhere, let alone in the NAS Proceedings. It was self-published by Robinson, who did the typesetting himself on his own computer. (It was subsequently published as a "review" in Climate Research, which contributed to an editorial scandal at that publication.)

None of the coauthors of "Environmental Effects of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide" had any more standing than Robinson himself as a climate change researcher. They included Robinson's 22-year-old son, Zachary, along with astrophysicists Sallie L. Baliunas and Willie Soon. Both Baliunas and Soon worked with Frederick Seitz at the George C. Marshall Institute, a Washington, D.C., think tank where Seitz served as executive director. Funded by a number of right-wing foundations, including Scaife and Bradley, the George C. Marshall Institute does not conduct any original research. It is a conservative think tank that was initially founded during the years of the Reagan administration to advocate funding for Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative--the "Star Wars" weapons program. Today, the Marshall Institute is still a big fan of high-tech weapons. In 1999, its website gave prominent placement to an essay by Col. Simon P. Worden titled "Why We Need the Air-Borne Laser," along with an essay titled "Missile Defense for Populations--What Does It Take? Why Are We Not Doing It?" Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, however, the Marshall Institute has adapted to the times by devoting much of its firepower to the war against environmentalism, and in particular against the "scaremongers" who raise warnings about global warming.

"The mailing is clearly designed to be deceptive by giving people the impression that the article, which is full of half-truths, is a reprint and has passed peer review," complainedRaymond Pierrehumbert, a meteorlogist at the University of Chicago. NAS foreign secretary F. Sherwood Rowland, an atmospheric chemist, said researchers "are wondering if someone is trying to hoodwink them." NAS council member Ralph J. Cicerone, dean of the School of Physical Sciences at the University of California at Irvine, was particularly offended that Seitz described himself in the cover letter as a "past president" of the NAS. Although Seitz had indeed held that title in the 1960s, Cicerone hoped that scientists who received the petition mailing would not be misled into believing that he "still has a role in governing the organization."

The NAS issued an unusually blunt formal response to the petition drive. "The NAS Council would like to make it clear that this petition has nothing to do with the National Academy of Sciences and that the manuscript was not published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences or in any other peer-reviewed journal," it stated in a news release. "The petition does not reflect the conclusions of expert reports of the Academy." In fact, it pointed out, its own prior published study had shown that "even given the considerable uncertainties in our knowledge of the relevant phenomena, greenhouse warming poses a potential threat sufficient to merit prompt responses. Investment in mitigation measures acts as insurance protection against the great uncertainties and the possibility of dramatic surprises."

 

[Old Rocks]

The whole "ice age" theory you and the "Warmers" subscribe to is completely wrong, and the last million years of Earth climate history proves it.

Greenland froze while North America thawed.

The above proves that CO2 has NOTHING TO DO WITH EARTH CLIMATE CHANGE.

Your "science" is to only allow those who PARROT your fraudulent fudgebaking heroes who say Co2 is the cause.

Tell us, birdbrain, how did CO2 melt NA and freeze Greenland AT THE SAME TIME???

FUCKING MORON!!!

Dumb fuck, provide us with a link to evidence of that statement. Here is what the scientists say concerning the glaciation of Antarctica.

The history of ice on Earth

Antarctica freezes over
14 million years ago

Antarctica wasn’t always a frozen wasteland. It wasn’t until around 34 million years ago that the first small glaciers formed on the tops of Antarctica’s mountains. And it was 20 million years later, when world-wide temperatures dropped by 8 °C, that the glaciers’ ice froze onto the rock, and the southern ice sheet was born.

This temperature drop was triggered by the rise of the Himalayas. As they grew higher they were exposed to increased weathering, which sucked CO2 out of the atmosphere and reduced the greenhouse effect.

The northern hemisphere remained relatively ice-free for longer, with Greenland and the Arctic becoming heavily glaciated only around 3.2 million years ago.