[DrCaleb]

andyt andyt:

But PA9 made a good point - if the loss of the ice is inevitable, as the paper says, lie back and enjoy it. Same with global warming. If we are causing it with our emissions, well lie back and enjoy it, because we'll never reduce them in time to make a diff. We're just not built that way. Just Learn to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb

So, what about the rest of the changes warming will bring about that aren't inevitable? What will our grandkids think of us knowing we could have done something and didn't?

[Zipperfish]

andyt andyt:

But PA9 made a good point - if the loss of the ice is inevitable, as the paper says, lie back and enjoy it. Same with global warming. If we are causing it with our emissions, well lie back and enjoy it, because we'll never reduce them in time to make a diff. We're just not built that way. Just Learn to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb

There's a difference between lie back and enjoy it and lie back and deny it.

I resigned myself to global warming long ago. It goes on the list of all the other potential armageddons we face. Airborne ebola, nucelar war, fisheries collapse, meteor strike. As a species we are not equipped, from an evolutionary perspective, to respond to slow threats. We think we can act, but we actually can't. I mean here you have all the scientists saying "Hey, this is happening..." and the collective response of plugging ears and yelling "LA LA LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU!"

[andyt]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

andyt andyt:

But PA9 made a good point - if the loss of the ice is inevitable, as the paper says, lie back and enjoy it. Same with global warming. If we are causing it with our emissions, well lie back and enjoy it, because we'll never reduce them in time to make a diff. We're just not built that way. Just Learn to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb

So, what about the rest of the changes warming will bring about that aren't inevitable? What will our grandkids think of us knowing we could have done something and didn't?

Read what Zip says just above this post.

[andyt]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

andyt andyt:

But PA9 made a good point - if the loss of the ice is inevitable, as the paper says, lie back and enjoy it. Same with global warming. If we are causing it with our emissions, well lie back and enjoy it, because we'll never reduce them in time to make a diff. We're just not built that way. Just Learn to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb

There's a difference between lie back and enjoy it and lie back and deny it.

Hurt so good
Come on baby, make it hurt so good
Sometimes love don't feel like it should
You make it hurt so good

[Jabberwalker]

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

Jabberwalker Jabberwalker:

Oh well, if the medical community something wrong, then climate change must be a myth. It's only logical.

Good to see your reading comprehension skills are sub-par cuz that's exactly what I said

You see, your logic appears to be that if a bunch of degreed people agree on something, it MUST be a fact.

However, since it appears that "Nothing can stop the retreat of West Antarctic glaciers" one can assume we are doomed anyway so why bother wasting money pretending we can do anything about "AGW"?

OTOH, if the doom and gloomers would shut the fuck up for two minutes we'd see/hear that based on current scientific projections from the climate science community, by the end of this century water levels could rise by as much as 3-5 whole centimeters.
Hardly the apocalyptic end of society that morons like Suzuki et al like to spew from their pie holes.

If two percent of the planet's climate scientists disagree with the consensus, then by all means be edgy. Believe whatever. Man is obviously not going to do anything abut climate change anyway. Fantasize to your heart's content. Hope your Standard Oil stock goes up.

[bootlegga]

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

bootleggers sig bootleggers sig:

Arnold Schwarznegger on Climate Change - If 98 doctors tell me my son is ill and needs medication and 2 do not, I listen to the 98. The same can be said about climate change.

Did you know that in the 70s and early 80s hormone replacement therapy was the standard "treatment" for women going through menopause? Even though a handful of doctors spoke out against it, the vast majority went along with it. The "study" was written by a single individual who doctored the study. Years later it was determined that hormone replacement therapy not only had a negligible effect on reducing the symptoms of menopause, but it greatly increased the risk of cancer.
Just because a bunch of people with degrees agree on something, doesn't automatically make them correct.

If you don't like Schwarznegger's opinion, talk to him about it.

[bootlegga]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

andyt andyt:

But PA9 made a good point - if the loss of the ice is inevitable, as the paper says, lie back and enjoy it. Same with global warming. If we are causing it with our emissions, well lie back and enjoy it, because we'll never reduce them in time to make a diff. We're just not built that way. Just Learn to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb

So, what about the rest of the changes warming will bring about that aren't inevitable? What will our grandkids think of us knowing we could have done something and didn't?

0:

global warming.jpg [ 123.08 KiB | Viewed 215 times ]

[BartSimpson]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Or, one could assume that maybe those thousands upon thousands of scinetists who have been saying for decades that global warming is real might be on to something.

They are. These scientists have come to a consensus that pronouncements on global warming are key to securing more funding from government agencies.

[BartSimpson]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

The ice sheet is melting

But that's not what your scientists are saying.

$1:

This, likewise, indicates that a collapse of the glacier is inevitable, and suggests it will most likely occur in the next 200 to 500 years.

*suggests* is not *is* or *will*.

Also, it's quite handy to predict climate doom to occur centuries from now - when the people making the prediction will no longer be accountable for their mistakes.

Seems these people are learning from their past mistakes and they know not to make any more predictions that can be debunked in their lifetimes.

[N_Fiddledog]

Agreed. This idea of the 200 year from now prediction is almost on the Doctor Evil scale of Mad Scientist brilliance if you look at it from the side of their political masters.

You almost want to be impressed by how clever it is. I mean they have all the weak minds pulling their hair out and running around in circles, squealing "OMG the ice is melting, the ice is melting! We'll all be flooded! It's the science, the science!"

But is it science. Who knows? We have to wait 200 years to find out for sure, and even then they'll say, "No wait, did we say 200? We meant 300. The truth is we could be living on popsicle Earth in 200 years. Nobody really knows.

[Zipperfish]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

They are. These scientists have come to a consensus that pronouncements on global warming are key to securing more funding from government agencies.

Money isd a motivator on both sides of the debate. the Heartland Insitute spends millions trying to influence debate. they have funding for scientists too.

[Zipperfish]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

Agreed. This idea of the 200 year from now prediction is almost on the Doctor Evil scale of Mad Scientist behaviour.

You almost want to be impressed by how clever it is. I mean they have all the weak minds pulling their hair out and running around in circles, squealing "OMG the ice is melting, the ice is melting! We'll all be flooded! It's the science, the science!"

But is it science. Who knows? We have to wait 200 years to find out for sure, and even then they'll say, "No wait, did we say 200? We meant 300. The truth is we could be living on popsicle Earth in 200 years. Nobody really knows.

I think the significance is that it provides evidence for a prediction made in 1978 for this sheet. It also shows that the growth in antarctic ice isn't as important as the water temperature beneath. For the deniers, they won't be able to point to growth in antarctic ice anymore to refute warming.

As for "pulling their hair out" and "squealing," we've both been on here long enough and people can make their own determiniation as to who the excitable one is.

[N_Fiddledog]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

They are. These scientists have come to a consensus that pronouncements on global warming are key to securing more funding from government agencies.

Money isd a motivator on both sides of the debate. the Heartland Insitute spends millions trying to influence debate. they have funding for scientists too.

Millions are a spit in the bucket in global warming world. Their blowing their nose with billions on the Warmist side.

In any case what does Heartland do that's so pernicious. They have a convention every year where scientists from both sides are invited to intend. True only one side is brave enough to appear, but is that their fault?

The attacks on Heartland are where the real dirt doggery takes place. Wanna talk about those. No, I don't just mean people taunting "Heartland sucks".

[N_Fiddledog]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

As for "pulling their hair out" and "squealing," we've both been on here long enough and people can make their own determiniation as to who the excitable one is.

It was you in the beginning, but we managed to pull you down to earth a bit where rational discussion is possible.

Now people like me and Bart have to enter crazy town in the clouds from time to time to bring the rest of them down to reality. Oh well, such is the lot of such as us, I guess.

[Zipperfish]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

It was you in the beginning, but we managed to pull you down to earth a bit where rational discussion is possible.

Now people like me and Bart have to enter crazy town in the clouds from time to time to bring the rest of them down to reality.

Crazy town. Yeah, that's not a bad way of putting it.