napfirst Posted February 19, 2014 Author Share Posted February 19, 2014 Calling algore.....anyone seen algore?....... Antarctic sea ice hit 35-year record high Saturday Antarctic sea ice has grown to a record large extent for a second straight year, baffling scientists seeking to understand why this ice is expanding rather than shrinking in a warming world. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/wp/2013/09/23/antarctic-sea-ice-hit-35-year-record-high-saturday/ More from your article: The increasing ice is especially perplexing since the water beneath the ice has warmed, not cooled. “The overwhelming evidence is that the Southern Ocean is warming,” said Jinlun Zhang, a University of Washington scientist, studying Antarctic ice. “Why would sea ice be increasing? Although the rate of increase is small, it is a puzzle to scientists.” Let me help you...my post is about the ice caps growing...if you would take my advice and read more than you post you'd realize that...it was algore who in 1999 predicted that by 2014 the ice cap would disappear...the only thing that's disappeared is algore....but he's made million$ on these lies and hoodwinked people like you....and as Cal posted this is further proof that scientist don't understand "climate change" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
napfirst Posted February 19, 2014 Author Share Posted February 19, 2014 Please break out your comments or new quotes separately from those of the original post. It eliminates having to backtrack and try to cross check for what has changed. Don't confuse him anymore than he already is..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rn4 Posted February 19, 2014 Share Posted February 19, 2014 That's more proof that scientists still don't fully understand the climate. It's complete stupidity to make dramatic policy decisions based on unclear science. But NAP is trying to use his article as proof that there is no climate change using the sea ice as his proof. The article didn't say anything about climate change stopping. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rn4 Posted February 19, 2014 Share Posted February 19, 2014 Don't confuse him anymore than he already is..... The only one confused here is you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TomServo92 Posted February 19, 2014 Share Posted February 19, 2014 (edited) But NAP is trying to use his article as proof that there is no climate change using the sea ice as his proof. The article didn't say anything about climate change stopping. I didn't say anything about climate change stopping either. Edited February 19, 2014 by TomServo92 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
napfirst Posted February 20, 2014 Author Share Posted February 20, 2014 But NAP is trying to use his article as proof that there is no climate change using the sea ice as his proof. The article didn't say anything about climate change stopping. So now you can read minds?.......what I'm I thinking right now...right>>>>>>>>>you don't know what you're talking about as usual..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cal50 Posted February 20, 2014 Share Posted February 20, 2014 Man has been around for about 12 thousand years (?) and the planet a lot longer. Anyone want to explain the major changes before man existed and how man can prevent similar ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edstock Posted February 20, 2014 Share Posted February 20, 2014 When you live in urban areas, climate change isn't so obvious. Elsewhere, that might not be so. Here's Corb Lund's take. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Langston Hughes Posted February 20, 2014 Share Posted February 20, 2014 That's more proof that scientists still don't fully understand the climate. It's complete stupidity to make dramatic policy decisions based on unclear science. I think it's utter stupidity to wait until the it's too late and then try to solve it. But your only keeping the tradition going that Churchill suggested (or is attributed to him) You can always count on Americans to do the right thing; after they've tried everything else. - Winston Churchill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TomServo92 Posted February 20, 2014 Share Posted February 20, 2014 I think it's utter stupidity to wait until the it's too late and then try to solve it. But your only keeping the tradition going that Churchill suggested (or is attributed to him) Logic dictates that you can't successfully solve a complex problem until it is fully understood. To do otherwise you run the risk of doing the wrong thing or even worse, exacerbating the problem. But hey, let's just go full steam ahead and throw logic to the wind. It's how your ilk operates, right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted February 20, 2014 Share Posted February 20, 2014 The most logical solution to the problem (if there is a problem that can be or needs to be solved) is to stop deforestation and increase reforestation and to control emissions in China and other foreign countries. But that doesn't fit their agenda. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Langston Hughes Posted February 21, 2014 Share Posted February 21, 2014 Logic dictates that you can't successfully solve a complex problem until it is fully understood. To do otherwise you run the risk of doing the wrong thing or even worse, exacerbating the problem. But hey, let's just go full steam ahead and throw logic to the wind. It's how your ilk operates, right? So crime is not fully understood but i don't see you saying don't buy firearms or locks on doors to minimize crime till we figure it out completely. Let's go moderately ahead with getting our home in order and preparing for the worst in both cases. Your ilk operates on lets do nothing because we can't be 100% sure that it will affect us until it's too late and then we should run around like chickens with our heads cut off. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Langston Hughes Posted February 21, 2014 Share Posted February 21, 2014 The most logical solution to the problem (if there is a problem that can be or needs to be solved) is to stop deforestation and increase reforestation and to control emissions in China and other foreign countries. But that doesn't fit their agenda. Well, since you or I can't force that, we must do what we can to help our planet, not just go pout in our rooms. The agenda is to fix what we can and try to get others to do the same. Can't see what you disagree with about that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted February 21, 2014 Share Posted February 21, 2014 Let's go moderately ahead with getting our home in order and preparing for the worst in both cases. You mean like enacting emissions controls and passing reforestation and conservation laws? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted February 21, 2014 Share Posted February 21, 2014 Well, since you or I can't force that, we must do what we can to help our planet, not just go pout in our rooms. The agenda is to fix what we can and try to get others to do the same. Can't see what you disagree with about that. WE'RE ALREADY "DOING WHAT WE CAN". We have some of the strictest emissions controls on automobiles in the world, if not THE strictest. Typical liberal response - let's do something that makes us feel better even if there is no chance in hell of it making an actual difference. And it's ok if we waste billions of dollars doing it. It's the same with gun control aimed at eliminating mass murders or higher corporate taxes aimed at reducing business profits. Neither one will work. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TomServo92 Posted February 21, 2014 Share Posted February 21, 2014 Well, since you or I can't force that, we must do what we can to help our planet, not just go pout in our rooms. The agenda is to fix what we can and try to get others to do the same. Can't see what you disagree with about that. I don't. I fully support conservation (like I have mentioned before, I am a champion of reducing paper usage in the corporation for which I work). What I don't support is the crisis mentality some have that we have to do spend billions right now to address a problem that science doesn't even fully understand yet. I don't think that is an unreasonable position. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted February 21, 2014 Share Posted February 21, 2014 (edited) WE'RE ALREADY "DOING WHAT WE CAN". We have some of the strictest emissions controls on automobiles in the world, if not THE strictest. Well, I do think there is more that we can do (particularly on more localized levels, such as incentivizing recycling and waste reduction, which are good for everybody, regardless of its impact on climate change), but yeah, something as sweeping as enacting wide-reaching carbon credit programs or something similar that could have a vastly detrimental effect on the economy is going a bit far a bit fast. Edited February 21, 2014 by NickF1011 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FiredMotorCompany Posted February 21, 2014 Share Posted February 21, 2014 So crime is not fully understood but i don't see you saying don't buy firearms or locks on doors to minimize crime till we figure it out completely. Let's go moderately ahead with getting our home in order and preparing for the worst in both cases. Your ilk operates on lets do nothing because we can't be 100% sure that it will affect us until it's too late and then we should run around like chickens with our heads cut off. That sounds awfully close to the "prepper" mindset. Maybe you already have your AK-47s and large capacity magazines with 1000s of rounds stored in your underground shelter. With your C Crane hand crank radio. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Langston Hughes Posted February 21, 2014 Share Posted February 21, 2014 That sounds awfully close to the "prepper" mindset. Maybe you already have your AK-47s and large capacity magazines with 1000s of rounds stored in your underground shelter. With your C Crane hand crank radio. Once again an intentional distortion of what i said. What i'd like to know is are you projecting or just being your typical intellectually dishonest self? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FiredMotorCompany Posted February 21, 2014 Share Posted February 21, 2014 Once again an intentional distortion of what i said. What i'd like to know is are you projecting or just being your typical intellectually dishonest self? Perhaps you should better explain your own words before you assault me for interpreting them as written. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Langston Hughes Posted February 21, 2014 Share Posted February 21, 2014 WE'RE ALREADY "DOING WHAT WE CAN". We have some of the strictest emissions controls on automobiles in the world, if not THE strictest. Typical liberal response - let's do something that makes us feel better even if there is no chance in hell of it making an actual difference. And it's ok if we waste billions of dollars doing it. It's the same with gun control aimed at eliminating mass murders or higher corporate taxes aimed at reducing business profits. Neither one will work. Of course that you would say so but it's not true. and it is a typical liberal response- let's do the right thing solely for the sake of doing the right thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted February 21, 2014 Share Posted February 21, 2014 and it is a typical liberal response- let's do the right thing solely for the sake of doing the right thing. Unless of course, it's not the right thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Langston Hughes Posted February 21, 2014 Share Posted February 21, 2014 Well, I do think there is more that we can do (particularly on more localized levels, such as incentivizing recycling and waste reduction, which are good for everybody, regardless of its impact on climate change), but yeah, something as sweeping as enacting wide-reaching carbon credit programs or something similar that could have a vastly detrimental effect on the economy is going a bit far a bit fast. And then when something not as far reaching comes up, most of these guys will return once again to denying climate change. Let's start with green energy investment, like the DOD investing in bio-fuels for our military. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Langston Hughes Posted February 21, 2014 Share Posted February 21, 2014 Perhaps you should better explain your own words before you assault me for interpreting them as written. Perhaps you should not try to intentionally distort what was a simple statement. I'm sorry but you should use context and the positions I have taken previous before you offer up over the top bullshit. I can't count how many times i have told you that I don't have firearms in my house. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted February 21, 2014 Share Posted February 21, 2014 Let's start with green energy investment, like the DOD investing in bio-fuels for our military. WISE green energy investment is fine. Overpaying by three or four times for bio-fuels that make a minimal impact isn't wise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.