Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Show me one that is positioned within the required specs. I'm not going to continue to post pics of shelters that are not, there are hundreds of them. But you would know that wouldn't you.
You won't continue to post pictures because you've run out of them. Besides, your pictures don't prove anything except a profound lack of understanding in the scientific process. I suppose saying things once and expecting you to understand it the first time is a bit much, so I'll say it again. Even if you were right about the data collection being compromised, it would be an obvious aberration and the data would be discarded. When a miniscule amount of data obviously doesn't correspond to the remaining data's pattern, it is discarded. When it is obvious that the collection method is causing the information to be skewed, it is thrown away.
And as far as the specs go, c'mon man, I've already asked you for the specs on these things. If you want to see specs, just google it. You'll discover that these little temperature sensors are fairly advanced, far more advanced than you seem to realize. All that's required is a UV shelter or a wooden box in order to get an accurate reading from them. They don't tell you that on Savage's or Limbaugh's websites though, do they?
Quote:
Originally Posted by coastalrap
My agenda is truth and facts, what are yours?
Sigh. Semantics, semantics. Your agenda cannot be "truth" and "facts." You can use "truth" and "facts" to support your agenda, though in your case it'll probably be easier not to use "facts." Facts are by definition quantifiable. They are irrefutible. They are witnessable. They are testable. "Truth" is more what you're looking for. Truth can be objective. Truth is the Bible. Truth is "Cogito ergo sum." Truth is used to justify suicide bombing. Your agenda is denial, and truth is your catalyst.
Quote:
Originally Posted by starlite9
Well for starters, you claim you were "Lost" because the map didn't show the ice receding.... How in the world did you get there... by accident?
Yes, that is what I said. I said I got lost while getting to a glacier. Is it possible for you to be more dense? You've very obviously got no experience in the outdoors, which is a sad sad shame considering you live in the most pristine naturally beautiful state in the union. I met plenty of people like you while I was in Alaska. They bitched and moaned and whined all day long about how boring their state was. All they did all day long was sit at home watching tv, played on their computer, hung out in front of the McDonalds or snorted meth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by starlite9
You had to arrive, either by car (in some cases you can drive up by them), Aircraft (Where you can see the lay of the land) or hike in (Where you had to know were you were at to get there). So to not know where you were at is too much of a stretch when all of the Alaskan Glaciers have mountains sticking up on either side for a point of reference.
Then obviously (and again) you have no idea the complexities involved in not getting lost in the wild. Having a mountain on one side of you doesn't mean that mountain will always be visible. If you're in a thicket of trees, you won't see the mountain. But, that knowledge is only something you'd know if you actually did any hiking. More than one visible reference point is a good idea to keep yourself from getting too lost.
Quote:
Originally Posted by starlite9
To say you were disorientated by the lack of "Ice", would be like me giving directions to someone in the city to "Turn Left at the red parked car", which may or may not be there when you arrive at that turn.
Yes, I can see how you would come to that conclusion. One tiny red car that obviously has the ability to move is as good a reference point as a mile wide glacier.
Quote:
Originally Posted by starlite9
So I have to deuce one of some things...
Deuce away, braintrust.
Quote:
Originally Posted by starlite9
A. You have no idea on how to read a map.
Right, because 1 + 2 obviously equals 99.
Quote:
Originally Posted by starlite9
B. You have never been on a Glacier in Alaska.
Your rigorous adherence to logic is probably making Sherlock Holmes jealous.
Quote:
Originally Posted by starlite9
C. In Texas there isn't any real mountains for you to know how to take a bearing on a map... and to claim you were "Disorientated" on a Glacier is a bogus claim because you didn't realize that fact that the mountains are there in the first place, otherwise you would have known that little fact...
Alaska isn't the first place I've been on a hike. There are mountains in Texas. And, I've never claimed to be "disorientated." Disoriented, sure. "Disorientated," never.
Quote:
Originally Posted by starlite9
So which one is it?
None of the above. Despite your conceits and desire to prove me a liar, you're still wrong. I didn't get lost out there and never recover from it. I'm here now, sitting at this computer, writing on this message board. Obviously I was able to recover. I just had to realign my senses when I realized, based on all the other reference points, the glacier had receded one full mile since the map had been printed. And, that map had only been printed 20 years before! That's the point, genius! I'm not arguing about how natural it is for glaciers to recede. I know this is just the way things are. What I've been saying consistently to either deaf or mentally challenged ears is that it is NOT natural for a glacier to recede this quickly. [/quote]
Quote:
Originally Posted by starlite9
Oh, and people die on the Glaciers often enough because they do have cracks in them under the snow from the constant movement that they have from the snow load "Up stream" that pushed them constantly downward. So yes, there are people on Glaciers as your pictures show, there just isn't too many "Smart" people on Glaciers... Unless the go towards the head of the Glacier where the snow pack is newer and the ice is fairly stable and the large cracks haven't developed yet.
I like how you call into question other people's intelligence when you can't even properly string words together to form a coherent sentence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by starlite9
And at times, all throughout history, Glaciers can and do "Runaway", that is where a glacier will travel a few hundred yards a day, such as the Black Rapid Glacier did in the 1950's when the "Cold" was still cold.
Right, see above re: single incidences not making a rule or setting a fact. The problem is there are not any glaciers advancing to even call into questions the validity of some global climate change. From Kilimanjaro to Everest to Alaska, glaciers are disappearing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by starlite9
Yes Glaciers melt, so what, that is what makes the mountains get cut down, without the melting process, the ice won't move to cause the erosion. That has been going on for millions of years, not the last 100 or so that the "Chicken Little's" are using as a ruler for the "Sky is falling"...
Glaciers come and go and have done so over the eons... as the Earth heats up and cools down, in spite of us.
Yes, yes, yes.. Many times yes. The Earth has a natural process that sees heating and cooling periods. And, likely we are in a natural heating period. But, all evidence points to the fact that we are speeding up the process. How many times must this point be stated before you get that this is is the primary theme of what I'm saying?
Well since nothing you have said is factual, you don't have to worry about it.
You don't "Accidentally" walk/hike up to a Glacier "lost"... If you were that lost, there would have been a massive search for you already underway.
You have mountain ranges to cross, roadless coastlines to follow, or Alaskan towns that have to be flown into and the map would have kept you from being lost unless you can't read one. The few Alaskan Glaciers that you can drive up to on the road system is but a handful and hard to be lost in sight of the road...
Clearly there is no correlation between your living in a city and pretending to be in the wilderness as you claim on hikes. I can't tell you anything about Texas other than it had I-10 that goes East and West out of the state. Since I live in Alaska, I can tell BS when I hear it from a flatlander, who is wilderness guy wantabe...
Texas may have hills you call "Mountains", but if you had been to Alaska, you would have known the differences, which you don't...
Get a life...
Here this may help on the mountain part:
#1 in Texas, Guadalupe Peak is a mountain summit in Culberson County in the state of Texas (TX). Guadalupe Peak climbs to 8,717 feet (2,656.94 meters) above sea level.
#1 in Alaska, Mount McKinley is a mountain summit in Denali Borough in the state of Alaska (AK). Mount McKinley climbs to 20,320 feet (6,193.54 meters) above sea level.
Then there is Mt. Gilbert Lewis, which is the smallest of the top fifty mountains in Alaska, ant it is still almost 3,500 feet taller than the number one in Texas...
#50 in Alaska, Mount Gilbert Lewis is a mountain summit in Valdez-Cordova (CA) Borough in the state of Alaska (AK). Mount Gilbert Lewis climbs to 12,047 feet (3,671.93 meters) above sea level.
Last edited by starlite9; 03-09-2009 at 02:11 PM..
Since I live in Alaska, I can tell BS when I hear it from a flatlander, who is wilderness guy wantabe...
Whatever, dude. I couldn't care less if you believe that I've hiked in your state. You don't hold claim to having done and seen all that there is to do and see in Alaska. To continue to attack this one piece is to lose sight of the fact I used a true personal anecdote to illustrate a larger point. And the point is that glaciers are receding faster than they would if left to their own device, without human interference.
It's kind of naive to say that we have NOTHING to do with global warming. Of course we do.
Carbon dioxide has gone way up since the industrial revolution way past any level its ever been before. It's common sense.
How do you know that what you are saying is true? We have a limited ability to test this theory. How long have they tested carbon dioxide levels? What is the control here? The theory is based from the beginning on a supposition and unless the data from "billions" of years can be produced has to remain a theory.
There are arguments on both sides of this issue however only one of them is deemed "credible." What started out as "global warming" has been renamed by some and is now being refered to as "global climate change." Why do you suppose that is? Could it possibly be that the data didn't add up? Could it be that "global climate change" was easier to sell in light of what the common man was seeing?
What is naive? to buy hook line and sinker what a group of scientists (who according to some are practicing bad scientific method) are selling you-, to vote for politicians who promise to stop it (with your money of course- or the "rich" people's money if that makes you feel better) or to look at the entire picture. Who exactly is naive?
Whatever, dude. I couldn't care less if you believe that I've hiked in your state. You don't hold claim to having done and seen all that there is to do and see in Alaska. To continue to attack this one piece is to lose sight of the fact I used a true personal anecdote to illustrate a larger point. And the point is that glaciers are receding faster than they would if left to their own device, without human interference.
Don't try to engage me in a flame war.
No, what I don't like is someone whom creates a story to try to emphasize an event that is not man made, it is ongoing history...
I grew up in Alaska, have been flying in Alaska over 35 years, been to all corners of it, and haven't even come close to doing everything there is here, but am still trying.
OH, and as a point of reference, there are Glaciers that are in fact growing larger in Alaska, not smaller. But I will let you google them....
No, what I don't like is someone whom creates a story to try to emphasize an event that is not man made, it is ongoing history...
For the love of all that is good and holy, please actually read what I've written! I've never disputed whether or not it's natural for glaciers to grow and shrink. I've stated over and over again the time line is what's not right.
Quote:
Originally Posted by starlite9
I grew up in Alaska, have been flying in Alaska over 35 years, been to all corners of it, and haven't even come close to doing everything there is here, but am still trying.
So you're a pilot, a human lie-detector test and an expert on climate? You know why Texans wear boots? They're easier to clean the bulls**t off, and right now I seem to be wading in a ton of yours.
Quote:
Originally Posted by starlite9
OH, and as a point of reference, there are Glaciers that are in fact growing larger in Alaska, not smaller. But I will let you google them....
Sure, sure...
They are growing larger because of one unusually colder summer where snow hasn't melted at a greater rate than it was initially accumulated. Either way, it's abnormal. It's takes more than one season to form a pattern. Give me ten summers like this, and then we will be able to call into question human's impact on Alaskan climate.
Personally I believe in global cooling. I have seen more of the affects of global cooling than global warming.
Well, growing up in the 50's, the scare (and the hysteria was similar to what Al Gore has been selling) was that we were entering a new "ice age" and we were all going to freeze to death and be burried under tons of ice.
That didn't happen. So when "they" started talking of "global warming", I couldn't help but laugh and say, "okay, whatever".
It is all political. It isn't science. It's a scam, designed to get you to behave in a certain way.
Well, growing up in the 50's, the scare (and the hysteria was similar to what Al Gore has been selling) was that we were entering a new "ice age" and we were all going to freeze to death and be burried under tons of ice.
That didn't happen. So when "they" started talking of "global warming", I couldn't help but laugh and say, "okay, whatever".
It is all political. It isn't science. It's a scam, designed to get you to behave in a certain way.
That's it. Nothing more.
If there had been Internet for the "Ice Age" groupie's of those years, you are right, it would have been as big or bigger than "Global Warming"....
I remember having "Experts" come to school a number of times and give speeches to the entire school in the gym, on how we could be seeing advancing Glacier's in our backyard during our lifetime.
Didn't happen, and now for a major tax increase, we can save the world from formally "Global Warming" which is now "Global Change" which was renamed to keep up with the Earth's changing weather patterns that man has no control over, in a vain attempt of some wanting to blame man for, which is clearly to justify their cause and power base....
Proving that if you tell a lie enough times, people will believe it to be a truth.
Kinda like "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain"...
For the love of all that is good and holy, please actually read what I've written! I've never disputed whether or not it's natural for glaciers to grow and shrink. I've stated over and over again the time line is what's not right.
So you're a pilot, a human lie-detector test and an expert on climate? You know why Texans wear boots? They're easier to clean the bulls**t off, and right now I seem to be wading in a ton of yours.
Sure, sure...
They are growing larger because of one unusually colder summer where snow hasn't melted at a greater rate than it was initially accumulated. Either way, it's abnormal. It's takes more than one season to form a pattern. Give me ten summers like this, and then we will be able to call into question human's impact on Alaskan climate.
Here, pop your bubble with some facts.... which isn't "Abnormal" it is a natural cycle...
You won't continue to post pictures because you've run out of them. Besides, your pictures don't prove anything except a profound lack of understanding in the scientific process. I suppose saying things once and expecting you to understand it the first time is a bit much, so I'll say it again. Even if you were right about the data collection being compromised, it would be an obvious aberration and the data would be discarded. When a miniscule amount of data obviously doesn't correspond to the remaining data's pattern, it is discarded. When it is obvious that the collection method is causing the information to be skewed, it is thrown away.
And as far as the specs go, c'mon man, I've already asked you for the specs on these things. If you want to see specs, just google it. You'll discover that these little temperature sensors are fairly advanced, far more advanced than you seem to realize. All that's required is a UV shelter or a wooden box in order to get an accurate reading from them. They don't tell you that on Savage's or Limbaugh's websites though, do they?
You mean a little shelter like this with the light bulb in it? Yes, I don't understand the high tech advanced systems you speak of. I guess those advanced devices can tell where the heat is coming from. It looks like these pictures prove that global really is caused by man.
I see you have been looking for a ligit recording station, found one yet?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
How do you know that what you are saying is true? We have a limited ability to test this theory. How long have they tested carbon dioxide levels? What is the control here? The theory is based from the beginning on a supposition and unless the data from "billions" of years can be produced has to remain a theory. 
to buy hook line and sinker what a group of scientists (who according to some are practicing bad scientific method) are selling you-, to vote for politicians who promise to stop it (with your money of course- or the "rich" people's money if that makes you feel better) or to look at the entire picture. Who exactly is naive?
