Why is climate science political?

[westwall]

Oddball -

And THAT is your example? And why on earth would you think this was relevent?

Kilimanjro doesn't even have glaciers, genius!

As you must be aware - 97% of the world's glaciers (and 99% of Alaskan glaciers) are in retreat.

Some 1% are growing.

So, yes, if you spend another hour looking, you will find evidence that backs your cause, and you can prevent it as evidence that everything is fine.

The SOUTH GLACIER on mt. Kilimanjaro and the REBMANN GLACIER (there are quite a few more!). I've actually climbed the mountain so your comment nearly made me spill my coffee. A more ignorant group of twerps would be harder to find than you and those who thanked you for this moronic post.

 

[westwall]

Meanwhile, the reason climate change is political is wingnuts, Christians, prison industry, petroleum industry, war industry, and retards are all lined up, claiming it doesn't exist or human activity is not responsible, in order to duck re-greening responsibility, by humans.

We re-green or the planet goes to shit. Acidification and warming are both accelerating. At this point, no matter, whether humans cause part, most, or all of the CO2, or they influenced it since the start of the industrial revolution, and the cumulative stewardship data is just not that good, so wingnuts keep ranting against mounting marginal evidence.

Acidification will take out the oceanic food chain, bees die, the Oglalla acquifier fails, pollution and any other disaster takes out the US breadbasket, and the wingnutskis get to think, hard! While wingnuts are trying to think, along comes a couple of big storms and rising seas, and people have to move, from coastal cities. This may take less than 100 years, to accrue.

Wingnutskis won't be able to fly in the face, of all this. Guilty or not, humanity has to move on all this, or eat shitsky, wingnutski! Go home to Russia, sell oil, snarf Putin!

No, the reason it is political is because left wing zealots are using environmentalism as a tool to steal money from the first world nations, enrich themselves, concentrate power in their sphere, and ultimately control all aspects of hman life because they think they know what's better for the Earth and humanity. Unfortunately their ultimate goal is genocide.


"In order to stabilize world population, we must eliminate 350,000 per day."
Read more at Jacques Yves Cousteau Quotes - BrainyQuote

 

[westwall]

So.....

What you're saying is that he has no credentials to support his expertise in Climatology.

Gee...Must need a degree in stupidity to figure out that one!

The world's leading atmospheric physicist has no expertise in climatology? Lordy, lordy, one of you is dumb as a rock, and the other is lying for employment.

That's right. You all say that unless you have a degree in climatology you are not possibly able to understand what is being said....You tell us that all the time.

 

[RollingThunder]

Did someone mention physical evidence?

Snow adorns the crown of Kilimanjaro

TANZANIA (eTN ) - Constituting the highest mountain in Africa, Mount Kilimanjaro is slowly building up its snow cover, allaying the fears of prominent scientists who had predicted witnessing the eminence lose its famous white hat. The drifts are slowly thickening on the top point of this summit, giving new hopes to Mount Kilimanjaro environmental watchdogs and tourists that the peak may not lose its beautiful snowy cap, as scientific experts have long been warning.

Most tourist-attractive site in Tanzania Snow adorns the crown of Kilimanjaro - eTurboNews.com

Gee, snow cover has recovered slightly and probably temporarily. Of course you're too ignorant to know how much of the snow and ice cover has already been lost.

Mount Kilimanjaro
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ice

In the late 1880s the summit of Kibo was completely covered by an ice cap with outlet glaciers cascading down the western and southern slopes, and, except for the inner cone, the entire caldera was buried. Glacier ice flowed also through the Western Breach.[30] An examination of ice cores taken from the North Ice Field Glacier indicate that the "snows of Kilimanjaro" (aka glaciers) have a basal age of 11,700 years.[31][32] A continuous ice cap covering approximately 400 square kilometers covered the mountain during the period of maximum glaciation, extending across the summits of Kibo and Mawenzi.[33] The glacial ice survived drought conditions during a three century period beginning ~2200 BCE.[34] The period from 1912 to present has witnessed the disappearance of more than 80% of the ice cover on Kilimanjaro. From 1912-1953 there was ~1% annual loss, while 1989-2007 saw ~2.5% annual loss. Of the ice cover still present in 2000, 26% had disappeared by 2007. While the current shrinking and thinning of Kilimanjaro's ice fields appears to be unique within its almost twelve millennium history, it is contemporaneous with widespread glacier retreat in mid-to-low latitudes across the globe. At the current rate, Kilimanjaro is expected to become ice-free some time between 2022 and 2033.[34]

 

[westwall]

Did someone mention physical evidence?

Snow adorns the crown of Kilimanjaro

TANZANIA (eTN ) - Constituting the highest mountain in Africa, Mount Kilimanjaro is slowly building up its snow cover, allaying the fears of prominent scientists who had predicted witnessing the eminence lose its famous white hat. The drifts are slowly thickening on the top point of this summit, giving new hopes to Mount Kilimanjaro environmental watchdogs and tourists that the peak may not lose its beautiful snowy cap, as scientific experts have long been warning.

Most tourist-attractive site in Tanzania Snow adorns the crown of Kilimanjaro - eTurboNews.com

Gee, snow cover has recovered slightly and probably temporarily. Of course you're too ignorant to know how much of the snow and ice cover has already been lost.

Mount Kilimanjaro
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ice

In the late 1880s the summit of Kibo was completely covered by an ice cap with outlet glaciers cascading down the western and southern slopes, and, except for the inner cone, the entire caldera was buried. Glacier ice flowed also through the Western Breach.[30] An examination of ice cores taken from the North Ice Field Glacier indicate that the "snows of Kilimanjaro" (aka glaciers) have a basal age of 11,700 years.[31][32] A continuous ice cap covering approximately 400 square kilometers covered the mountain during the period of maximum glaciation, extending across the summits of Kibo and Mawenzi.[33] The glacial ice survived drought conditions during a three century period beginning ~2200 BCE.[34] The period from 1912 to present has witnessed the disappearance of more than 80% of the ice cover on Kilimanjaro. From 1912-1953 there was ~1% annual loss, while 1989-2007 saw ~2.5% annual loss. Of the ice cover still present in 2000, 26% had disappeared by 2007. While the current shrinking and thinning of Kilimanjaro's ice fields appears to be unique within its almost twelve millennium history, it is contemporaneous with widespread glacier retreat in mid-to-low latitudes across the globe. At the current rate, Kilimanjaro is expected to become ice-free some time between 2022 and 2033.[34]

Yes, just imagine, 30 years after the end of the LITTLE ICE AGE there was a lot of snow at an elevation of 15,000 feet and above.

How do idiots like you find food.

 

[Katzndogz]

The Andean glaciers have been melting for the past 10,000 years as a result of the end of the Little Ice Age what's surprising is that they are not all melting. Some are growing. The Perito Moreno glacier in Argentina and Pio XI glacier in Chile are taking on ice, instead of shedding it.

If we had not had a little ice age we woudn't be exiting and there would be no global warming argument at all. We can demand to return to the ice age, but it probably won't happen.

 

[RollingThunder]

Did someone mention physical evidence?

Snow adorns the crown of Kilimanjaro

TANZANIA (eTN ) - Constituting the highest mountain in Africa, Mount Kilimanjaro is slowly building up its snow cover, allaying the fears of prominent scientists who had predicted witnessing the eminence lose its famous white hat. The drifts are slowly thickening on the top point of this summit, giving new hopes to Mount Kilimanjaro environmental watchdogs and tourists that the peak may not lose its beautiful snowy cap, as scientific experts have long been warning.

Most tourist-attractive site in Tanzania Snow adorns the crown of Kilimanjaro - eTurboNews.com

Gee, snow cover has recovered slightly and probably temporarily. Of course you're too ignorant to know how much of the snow and ice cover has already been lost.

Mount Kilimanjaro
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ice

In the late 1880s the summit of Kibo was completely covered by an ice cap with outlet glaciers cascading down the western and southern slopes, and, except for the inner cone, the entire caldera was buried. Glacier ice flowed also through the Western Breach.[30] An examination of ice cores taken from the North Ice Field Glacier indicate that the "snows of Kilimanjaro" (aka glaciers) have a basal age of 11,700 years.[31][32] A continuous ice cap covering approximately 400 square kilometers covered the mountain during the period of maximum glaciation, extending across the summits of Kibo and Mawenzi.[33] The glacial ice survived drought conditions during a three century period beginning ~2200 BCE.[34] The period from 1912 to present has witnessed the disappearance of more than 80% of the ice cover on Kilimanjaro. From 1912-1953 there was ~1% annual loss, while 1989-2007 saw ~2.5% annual loss. Of the ice cover still present in 2000, 26% had disappeared by 2007. While the current shrinking and thinning of Kilimanjaro's ice fields appears to be unique within its almost twelve millennium history, it is contemporaneous with widespread glacier retreat in mid-to-low latitudes across the globe. At the current rate, Kilimanjaro is expected to become ice-free some time between 2022 and 2033.[34]

Yes, just imagine, 30 years after the end of the LITTLE ICE AGE there was a lot of snow at an elevation of 15,000 feet and above.

Yeah.....so? You have quite a talent for irrelevancies.

The important points are these:
"An examination of ice cores taken from the North Ice Field Glacier indicate that the "snows of Kilimanjaro" (aka glaciers) have a basal age of 11,700 years."
"The period from 1912 to present has witnessed the disappearance of more than 80% of the ice cover on Kilimanjaro."
"Of the ice cover still present in 2000, 26% had disappeared by 2007."
"At the current rate, Kilimanjaro is expected to become ice-free some time between 2022 and 2033."

How do idiots like you find food.

Funny, that's exactly what everyone with more than half a brain asks about you and the other denier cult dingbats.

 

[westwall]

Gee, snow cover has recovered slightly and probably temporarily. Of course you're too ignorant to know how much of the snow and ice cover has already been lost.

Mount Kilimanjaro
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ice

In the late 1880s the summit of Kibo was completely covered by an ice cap with outlet glaciers cascading down the western and southern slopes, and, except for the inner cone, the entire caldera was buried. Glacier ice flowed also through the Western Breach.[30] An examination of ice cores taken from the North Ice Field Glacier indicate that the "snows of Kilimanjaro" (aka glaciers) have a basal age of 11,700 years.[31][32] A continuous ice cap covering approximately 400 square kilometers covered the mountain during the period of maximum glaciation, extending across the summits of Kibo and Mawenzi.[33] The glacial ice survived drought conditions during a three century period beginning ~2200 BCE.[34] The period from 1912 to present has witnessed the disappearance of more than 80% of the ice cover on Kilimanjaro. From 1912-1953 there was ~1% annual loss, while 1989-2007 saw ~2.5% annual loss. Of the ice cover still present in 2000, 26% had disappeared by 2007. While the current shrinking and thinning of Kilimanjaro's ice fields appears to be unique within its almost twelve millennium history, it is contemporaneous with widespread glacier retreat in mid-to-low latitudes across the globe. At the current rate, Kilimanjaro is expected to become ice-free some time between 2022 and 2033.[34]

Yes, just imagine, 30 years after the end of the LITTLE ICE AGE there was a lot of snow at an elevation of 15,000 feet and above.

Yeah.....so? You have quite a talent for irrelevancies.

The important points are these:
"An examination of ice cores taken from the North Ice Field Glacier indicate that the "snows of Kilimanjaro" (aka glaciers) have a basal age of 11,700 years."
"The period from 1912 to present has witnessed the disappearance of more than 80% of the ice cover on Kilimanjaro."
"Of the ice cover still present in 2000, 26% had disappeared by 2007."
"At the current rate, Kilimanjaro is expected to become ice-free some time between 2022 and 2033."

How do idiots like you find food.

Funny, that's exactly what everyone with more than half a brain asks about you and the other denier cult dingbats.

Your whole existence is irrelevant. That point aside what does your website have to say about the holocene thermal maximum when the temps were much higher than they are today? Hmmmm? What was the state of the glaciers on Kilimanjaro then?

Nice attempt to cover up your compatriots idiotic response. You fail as usual.

 

[code1211]

Retarded dogs could cheat you at cards, walleyed, you poor deluded cretin.

And of course, as usual, you're completely clueless about the real world. Your denier cult myths, like the ones about Dr. Hansen's work, are, as always, utter BS. Most of the predictions that Dr. Hansen has made have come to pass or are happening now. He is an eminent scientist, honored and respected by his peers.

James Hansen
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Honors and awards

Hansen was elected to the National Academy of Sciences in 1996 for his "development of pioneering radiative transfer models and studies of planetary atmospheres; development of simplified and three-dimensional global climate models; explication of climate forcing mechanisms; analysis of current climate trends from observational data; and projections of anthropogenic impacts on the global climate system."[70] In 2001, he received the 7th Annual Heinz Award in the Environment (endowed with US$250,000) for his research on global warming,[71] and was listed as one of Time Magazine's 100 Most Influential People in 2006. Also in 2006, the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) selected James Hansen to receive their Award for Scientific Freedom and Responsibility "for his courageous and steadfast advocacy in support of scientists' responsibilities to communicate their scientific opinions and findings openly and honestly on matters of public importance."[72]

In 2007, Hansen shared the US $1 million Dan David Prize for "achievements having an outstanding scientific, technological, cultural or social impact on our world". In 2008, he received the PNC Bank Common Wealth Award of Distinguished Service for his "outstanding achievements" in science. At the end of 2008, Hansen was named by EarthSky Communications and a panel of 600 scientist-advisors as the Scientist Communicator of the Year, citing him as an "outspoken authority on climate change" who had "best communicated with the public about vital science issues or concepts during 2008."[73]

In 2009, Hansen was awarded the 2009 Carl-Gustaf Rossby Research Medal,[73] the highest honor bestowed by the American Meteorological Society, for his "outstanding contributions to climate modeling, understanding climate change forcings and sensitivity, and for clear communication of climate science in the public arena."[74]

Hansen won the 2010 Sophie Prize, set up in 1997 by Norwegian Jostein Gaarder, the author of the 1991 best-selling novel and teenagers' guide to philosophy "Sophie's World",[75] for his " key role for the development of our understanding of human-induced climate change."

Why not post his prediction from 30 years ago that accurately predicts today's climate based on his theories regarding the growth of CO2?

Okey-dokey, code4stupid, here ya go.

J. Hansen, D. Johnson, A. Lacis, S. Lebedeff, P. Lee, D. Rind, and G. Russell, "Climate Impact of Increasing Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide", Science, vol. 213, 1981, pp. 957-966. DOI

Fig.6 (from the paper) gives a projection for the global mean temperature up to 2100. In 1981 the northern hemisphere was cooling somewhat and the average global temperature was lower than the average temperatures of the early 1940s, but Hansen and his colleagues confidently predicted a rise in temperature due to increasing CO2 emissions. Their graph assumes that that the world would start taking some actions to deal with this situation starting in the late 1990s, so they modeled the results of several different energy-use scenarios.

Looking back at the actual temperature record since 1981 (in red) reveals that Hansen slightly underestimated the rise in temperatures.

So in this prediction he missed it low and in the prediction he made in 1988, he missed it high by a factor of 100%?

Does this sound like science or roulette?

What do we learn from James Hansen's 1988 prediction?

 

[code1211]

Okey-dokey, code4stupid, here ya go.

J. Hansen, D. Johnson, A. Lacis, S. Lebedeff, P. Lee, D. Rind, and G. Russell, "Climate Impact of Increasing Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide", Science, vol. 213, 1981, pp. 957-966. DOI

Fig.6 (from the paper) gives a projection for the global mean temperature up to 2100. In 1981 the northern hemisphere was cooling somewhat and the average global temperature was lower than the average temperatures of the early 1940s, but Hansen and his colleagues confidently predicted a rise in temperature due to increasing CO2 emissions. Their graph assumes that that the world would start taking some actions to deal with this situation starting in the late 1990s, so they modeled the results of several different energy-use scenarios.

Looking back at the actual temperature record since 1981 (in red) reveals that Hansen slightly underestimated the rise in temperatures.

In 1981 the northern hemisphere was cooling somewhat and the average global temperature was lower than the average temperatures of the early 1940s,

Impossible! CO2 was higher in 1981 than in the early 1940s!

Now if you were not such a willfully ignorant ass, you would know that cause of that. Referance Hansen's Faustian Bargain.

But, but, but...

You said that CO2 is the PRIMARY driver of climate and if we can control CO2 we will return to the ideal temperature of the times of Global famine and plague.

What's a doubter to doubt with so many possible things that seem doubtful?

 

[code1211]

BULLSHIT! The coal industry has OWNED local, county and state judges for generations. Where do you think the term 'company town' came from?

The relative freedom of the West Virginia miners was quickly overshadowed as industries began to exhibit more and more control over the region. Soon company towns dominated the coalfields, and miners had no choice but to live in them. Every aspect of a miner’s life was controlled by what existed for him in the operator-owned town. Only paid in company script, miners had no choice but to shop at the company store, which greatly inflated prices in order to compensate for wage increases. Towns were unsanitary and lacked any kind of central political structure. Important information on voting and politics were withheld from miners, and the company post-master routinely scrutinized thier mail. Operators controlled every aspect of the town and ruled unjustly and often times violently. When population and discontent began to rise in company towns, operators installed private police-like guards who patrolled the streets and instituted their own brand of martial law.

Is this a story of the good ol' days or is this happening right now?

Did You Know?

• 50% of the counties in Central Appalachia have only one hospital and about 1 in 5 do not have a hospital at all

• On average, 20% of the people in the region live below the poverty line (the current national poverty rate for a family of four is $20,650 a year, i.e. $1,720 a month)

• The first shipment of coal out of Central Appalachia was in 1892 from Dickenson County, in Southwest Virginia; today one coal company owns approximately 40% of the land and between 60%-80% of all of the mineral rights in the county

• 80% of all Central Appalachian counties are rural, and over half of the region's population lives in these rural counties

• Extraction abuses by the coal industry, especially through mountain top removal, has destroyed more than 1,000,000 acres of forests, 500 mountains, and buried over 1,000 miles of streams in the Appalachian region

• Kentucky ranks 50th in the Nation for the number of adults who cannot read

• In Eastern Kentucky, where 60% of counties are consistently poor, the A.T. Massey company operated coal mines through 18 subsidiaries, and reported an operating profit in 2000 of $147 million with revenues of $1.1 billion

• Remote parts of Southwest Virginia are now sites of many prisons, Red Onion and Wallens Ridge - both super maximum security prisons; inmates are shipped here from across the nation and from as far away as Hawaii and urban cities in the Northeast

• In Hancock County, Tennessee the average income for a family of 4 is $14,000 a year, which is 47% of the national figure

• 1/3 of all of West Virginia's children are born into poverty

• In Logan County, West Virginia 40% of residents do not have safe drinking water

Central Appalachia is a place of great contradictions. The beauty of the oldest mountain range in North America with lush mountains, old growth forests, small towns and isolated mountain communities is juxtaposed with long-term poverty, out-migration, lack of health care, inadequate educational systems, and political corruption.

The coal, timber, oil, gas, and water contained within the Appalachian mountains are resources that have historically influenced the social economic and political characteristics of the region. Companies have profited greatly from the natural resources at the expense of exploiting our people and destroying the environment leaving generations in decades-long, structural poverty. It is a cruel irony that a region so rich in natural resources is home to many of the poorest people in the United States.

Originally home to indigenous peoples such as the Cherokee and Creek Nations, the rich coalfields of Eastern Kentucky, Southwest Virginia, East Tennessee, and West Virginia are now home to 6 million people, over half of whom live in rural areas, with some counties having less than 25,000 residents.
The coal and other resources generate revenues into the billions of dollars, but these huge profits go to companies in other states and counties not in Central Appalachian. Appalachian counties are left with little or no tax base to help fund schools, health care, or job creation.

Entrenched, corrupt local governments and lagging public policy have not generated sustainable economic alternatives in our region. Low-wealth individuals, women and people of color are often discouraged or excluded from civic activism. New job creation tends to be in the form of low-wage jobs, and at the same time, globalization has moved thousands of jobs from the region. Low-income communities have difficulty attracting new business. Geographic isolation and the lack of role models, entrepreneurial skills and access to start-up funds often frustrate individuals, communities and grass-roots groups poised to work to make significant positive change.

Was there a date in this somewhere?

 

[code1211]

Sure enough, the glaciers are nor receding, the arctic ocean ice is not decreasing in area and volume, the arctic ocean clathrates are not creating 1 kilometer wide boils of methane directly to the atmosphere, and Swiss Re and Munich Re are lying about the record increase in weather related disasters in the last three decades.

Just a bunch of people wanting to tax poor Ian. Damn, I did not take you for one of the fruitloops.

My thoughts exactly.

Denying physical evidence that many of us have seen with our own eyes is not a very rational defence.

The trick is not to prove warming and it is not to prove CO2 increase. The trick is to prove that one causes the other. Historically, there is a causal link between the rise of temperature and the resulting rise of CO2. There is no such histoical link the other way.

Rocks, spare the Permian Extinction diatribe from millions of years ago. You cannot demonstrate a link of about 5 to 800 years across millions of years of geological digging.

Given there is no historical evidence, you need to demonstrate the modern link and beyond that the link that CO2 is so primary that adjusting it will, with no uncertainty produce the effect that you predict.

There is uncertainty.

 

[code1211]

Did someone mention physical evidence?

Snow adorns the crown of Kilimanjaro

TANZANIA (eTN ) - Constituting the highest mountain in Africa, Mount Kilimanjaro is slowly building up its snow cover, allaying the fears of prominent scientists who had predicted witnessing the eminence lose its famous white hat. The drifts are slowly thickening on the top point of this summit, giving new hopes to Mount Kilimanjaro environmental watchdogs and tourists that the peak may not lose its beautiful snowy cap, as scientific experts have long been warning.

Most tourist-attractive site in Tanzania Snow adorns the crown of Kilimanjaro - eTurboNews.com

The glacier atop Kilimanjaro was never the victim of warming, but rather of lower precipitation.

Another disingenuous "proof" offered by the warmers.

 

[code1211]

Oddball -

And THAT is your example? And why on earth would you think this was relevent?

Kilimanjro doesn't even have glaciers, genius!

As you must be aware - 97% of the world's glaciers (and 99% of Alaskan glaciers) are in retreat.

Some 1% are growing.

So, yes, if you spend another hour looking, you will find evidence that backs your cause, and you can prevent it as evidence that everything is fine.

How old are the glacial fields that are melting?

 

[code1211]

And here is the real story on Kilimanjaro...

While the retreat of glaciers and mountaintop ice in the mid-latitudes -- where much of the world's human population lives -- is definitely linked to global climate change, the same cannot be said of Kilimanjaro, the researchers wrote in the July-August edition of American Scientist magazine.

Kilimanjaro's icy top, which provided the title for an iconic short story by Ernest Hemingway, has been waning for more than a century, according to Philip Mote of the University of Washington in the United States and Georg Kaser of the University of Innsbruck in Austria.

Most of the retreat occurred before 1953, nearly two decades before any conclusive evidence of atmospheric warming was available, they wrote.

"It is certainly possible that the icecap has come and gone many times over hundreds of thousands of years," Mote, a climatologist, said in a statement.

Unlike mid-latitude glaciers, which are warmed and melted by surrounding air in the summer, the disappearance of Kilimanjaro's ice is driven by solar radiation, since the air around it is rarely above freezing, they wrote.

"But for temperate glaciers, there is ample evidence that they are shrinking, in part because of warming from greenhouse gases."

Kilimanjaro's shrinking snow not sign of warming | Reuters

Why do they never quantify that "part"?

 

[bobgnote]

Sure enough, the glaciers are nor receding, the arctic ocean ice is not decreasing in area and volume, the arctic ocean clathrates are not creating 1 kilometer wide boils of methane directly to the atmosphere, and Swiss Re and Munich Re are lying about the record increase in weather related disasters in the last three decades.

Just a bunch of people wanting to tax poor Ian. Damn, I did not take you for one of the fruitloops.

My thoughts exactly.

Denying physical evidence that many of us have seen with our own eyes is not a very rational defence.

The trick is not to prove warming and it is not to prove CO2 increase. The trick is to prove that one causes the other. Historically, there is a causal link between the rise of temperature and the resulting rise of CO2. There is no such histoical link the other way.

Rocks, spare the Permian Extinction diatribe from millions of years ago. You cannot demonstrate a link of about 5 to 800 years across millions of years of geological digging.

Given there is no historical evidence, you need to demonstrate the modern link and beyond that the link that CO2 is so primary that adjusting it will, with no uncertainty produce the effect that you predict.

There is uncertainty.

Gosh, I guess 97% of the glaciers are not receding.

Gee, I imagine methane isn't really issuing, from melted glacial ice, warming bodies of water, and from land areas, formerly covered by permafrost, before Bossy the cow even farts once! I guess human fossil fuel consumption isn't anywhere near related to this.

Well now, that means the 'hockey-stick' of accelerating global warming must be for dropping on the ice, right before a fight, or it might be hooking or cross-checking.

I now am absolutely certain the Holy Father's ****-tards are correct, about how we in the USA should keep importing oil, from OPEC and Russians and whoever holy papists can blow, under the covers.

Those wingnutskis sure are smart, with their accents and all. They don't believe in AGW, and look at all the oil they export! I'm not going to watch anything, but Russia Today News, but what's that shit about Bashar Assad, I guess his boys don't kill Syrian citizens wholesale, at all, after all!

We might as well all forget about the carbonic acid, building up in the oceans. Somebody tell those assholes at the beach to quit spilling their sodas, dammit!

Golly creepers, I thought Old Rocks was smarter than everybody, but now that wingnuts zombie'd on over and ate my brains, we can't possibly be headed for Mass Extinction Event 6, and I'd better get myself over to some whorehouse I mean church and pray for Rocks' immortal soul, so he doesn't come up with hard-to-sell ideas, about the Permian Extinction coming to see us, eat the wafer, shut the **** up, blood of Jesus, save my faithful ass.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Sure enough, the glaciers are nor receding, the arctic ocean ice is not decreasing in area and volume, the arctic ocean clathrates are not creating 1 kilometer wide boils of methane directly to the atmosphere, and Swiss Re and Munich Re are lying about the record increase in weather related disasters in the last three decades.

Just a bunch of people wanting to tax poor Ian. Damn, I did not take you for one of the fruitloops.

My thoughts exactly.

Denying physical evidence that many of us have seen with our own eyes is not a very rational defence.

Sure enough, the glaciers are nor receding,

OMG! This must be the first time in human history that glaciers have retreated. LOL!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Sure enough, the glaciers are nor receding, the arctic ocean ice is not decreasing in area and volume, the arctic ocean clathrates are not creating 1 kilometer wide boils of methane directly to the atmosphere, and Swiss Re and Munich Re are lying about the record increase in weather related disasters in the last three decades.

Just a bunch of people wanting to tax poor Ian. Damn, I did not take you for one of the fruitloops.

My thoughts exactly.

Denying physical evidence that many of us have seen with our own eyes is not a very rational defence.

Obviously the only evidence that counts is what you've seen in your short life.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Oddball -

And THAT is your example? And why on earth would you think this was relevent?

Kilimanjro doesn't even have glaciers, genius!

As you must be aware - 97% of the world's glaciers (and 99% of Alaskan glaciers) are in retreat.

Some 1% are growing.

So, yes, if you spend another hour looking, you will find evidence that backs your cause, and you can prevent it as evidence that everything is fine.

What about the Chicago glacier?
Is it in retreat?

 

[IanC]

can someone please tell me how the continued retreat of glaciers is evidence of manmade global warming? is the retreat before 1950 (or whatever cutoff you want to use) different than post 1950?