Ummm...About that Melting Arctic Ice....... (Representatives, ideologies, history, Washington)

[Bluefly]

Originally Posted by sanrene

OMG. Where are you getting this hysteria from? Please, a link.

Oh sweet Allah, (may peace be upon him). Is every scientific FACT that challenges your belief structure "hysteria"?

Seriously, child, this is a VERY well known phenomenon and a crisis that is being addressed on multiple fronts. 24 billion tons of topsoil lost every year. You can't pursue intense industrial farming in the manner we do (not letting fields recover) without stripping nutrients. That's why we use fertilizers - to compensate.

If you won't start doing your own research, then I can only conclude you are not educated on these subjects. Seriously. A Google search would have provided everything you need to know about this crisis:

The World’s Running Out of Fertile Soil… Here’s What to Do - Contrarian Stock Market Investing News - Featuring Bargain Stocks (http://www.contrarianprofits.com/articles/the-worlds-running-out-of-fertile-soil-heres-what-to-do/5888 - broken link)

mbox-19: Fertile Soil

So...you don't like lights? I suggest you go to North Korea then, they are virtually blacked out at night.

Unbelievable how impossible it is to have a discussion without you twisting and inserting concepts to suit your preconceived belief structure. When did I ever even suggest that I don't like lights? The individual stated that it would be impossible for little ol' humans to influence the climate. I was demonstrating that we have already restructured the entire built landscape, as evidenced by our development patterns clear across the glode. Whether that is good or bad or both is irrelevant to the topic being discussed.

The catastrophic fires, like the one recently in Calif, is due to enviro-wackos that obstruct the clearing of dead, diseased and overgrowth from the area. More fuel to burn = bigger and out of control fires.

Actually, it began with industrial high-grade forestry practices combined with fire suppression policies that began in the 1800s - taking the big trees and not letting the forests burn naturally. Due to this abusive practice, environmentalists tried to lock the land away and exacerbated the problems. So, it was not created by environmentalists. Fortunately, they now understand the need for fire now and over the past couple decades have allowed burnings to maintain forest health.

Congratulations. You got half an answer correct. Have a cookie.

More hysteria. Did you know the hole is shrinking?

Again, genius, the hole in the ozone that emerged is evidence that humans can have a direct impact on the atmosphere. I was responding to the ill-informed individual's claim. If, in fact, it is closing (still debate among scientists), then you should be excited to know that humans can both create a problem and fix it.



Why does this thread continue? Your initial argument was proven fundamentally wrong within the very articles you cited as evidence for your claim. Now you're just branching off into all these tangents. This thread should close. Numerous people have DM'd or reputation commented that having a discussion with you based on facts and reason is consistently impossible.

I now understand why.

[Bluefly]

Originally Posted by sanrene

Are no longer happening now? Or will happen in the fuure?

You really don't get this, do you? Of COURSE the earth has been warmer. It was a seething ball of fire when it first developed. We're talking about maintaining a temperature range suitable for humans. In that context, there is no debate that we are escalating out of that range and that the natural causes of climate shifts are only part of the explanation today.

Seriously, read the science for yourself with an open mind. It's really not a debate anymore that humans are influencing the climate (how much versus how much is a natural cycle is still debated among some scientists).

[sanrene]

Why does this thread continue? Your initial argument was proven fundamentally wrong within the very articles you cited as evidence for your claim. Now you're just branching off into all these tangents.

Excuse me - My responses are to YOUR posts and hysteria about soil and lights and forests and the ozone hole - the only one going off on tangents is YOU as your beliefs and opinions regarding "melting ice" have been proven wrong.

Blogs reports on the supposed loss of the planets soil (what an inane thought) is incredible, at best.

YOU mentioned the lights as seen from satellites - as if that is a bad, bad thing.

Fortunately, they now understand the need for fire now and over the past couple decades have allowed burnings to maintain forest health.

Incorrect, again. The most recent Calif fire was exacerbated by the enviro-wackos and their insane policy of obstructing every attempt to lesson the impact of wildfires.

Again, genius, the hole in the ozone that emerged is evidence that humans can have a direct impact on the atmosphere. I was responding to the ill-informed individual's claim. If, in fact, it is closing (still debate among scientists), then you should be excited to know that humans can both create a problem and fix it.

Where is the empirical evidence that the hole (a natural phenomenon) can be altered by humans?

Numerous people have DM'd or reputation commented that having a discussion with you based on facts and reason is consistently impossible.

You have presented neither. You have presented not one modern day example of a catastrophic "climate" event that rivals the extreme events of the past. You know, the "exponentially escalating levels never seen before" unsubstantiated hysteria.

You really don't get this, do you? Of COURSE the earth has been warmer. It was a seething ball of fire when it first developed. We're talking about maintaining a temperature range suitable for humans. In that context, there is no debate that we are escalating out of that range and that the natural causes of climate shifts are only part of the explanation today.

Really? What is the optimum temperature for the planet? For humans?

Seriously, read the science for yourself with an open mind. It's really not a debate anymore that humans are influencing the climate (how much versus how much is a natural cycle is still debated among some scientists).

It's even more of a debate now. You see, mother nature has proven the claims and predictions of the alarmists are nothing but hand-wringing hysteria based on defective climate models.

Back to the original topic - the prediction that the ice cap would be gone in 5 years, now they say maybe 20-30 years. And why should anyone believe those estimates?

[Bluefly]

Originally Posted by sanrene

Excuse me - My responses are to YOUR posts and hysteria about soil and lights and forests and the ozone hole - the only one going off on tangents is YOU as your beliefs and opinions regarding "melting ice" have been proven wrong.

Blogs reports on the supposed loss of the planets soil (what an inane thought) is incredible, at best.

YOU mentioned the lights as seen from satellites - as if that is a bad, bad thing.

You struggle to grasp context and facts without spinning your preconceived fundamentalism into it. I tried explaining it to you and that YOU were the one interjecting a value structure to my statements about something being a "bad, bad thing". Nothing more to add.

Incorrect, again. The most recent Calif fire was exacerbated by the enviro-wackos and their insane policy of obstructing every attempt to lesson the impact of wildfires.

Again, reading comprehension. I agreed with you that environmentalists are exaccerbating wildfire issues over the past couple decades and play a role in these issues. But, if you would comprehend what I write, you would understand that the reason that movement emerged in the first place was because of over a century of established forest management policies that created MAJOR wildfire problems.

This is not an opinion. This is a well established fact for anyone familiar with this field and its issues.

Again, reading comprehenson and understanding facts without cherry picking outliers.

[sanrene]

You struggle to grasp context and facts without spinning your preconceived fundamentalism into it. I tried explaining it to you and that YOU were the one interjecting a value structure to my statements about something being a "bad, bad thing". Nothing more to add.

What is the point of this statement of yours below?

If you look at a satellite picture of earth at night, you'll see that we basically cover the entire globe with our lights, thus altering the physical landscape drastically.

You imply this is a bad thing.

[saganista]

Originally Posted by sanrene

Since it shrinks and expands every year, may we conclude it is a natural occurrence?

If you are asking whether it is possible that some hapless, unknowing reactionaries might unreasonably draw such a conclusion, yes, that is a possibility. If you are asking whether the conclusion would be warranted on the basis of the evidence, don't be ridiculous.

[sanrene]

You mean, on the basis of a theory.

[saganista]

Originally Posted by sanrene

So the cause pre 1780;
Changes in the Earth's orbit:
Changes in the sun's intensity:
Volcanic eruptions
Are no longer happening now? Or will happen in the future?

Another in what has become a very long sequence of red flags. Failure to be able to distinguish between very short term global warming effects and those processes of natural climate variation that occur over thousands and millions of years ought to be a disqualifier from the discussion, as it indicates a level of comprehension that would be unduly praised in being called negligible. But we do have freedom of speech in this country, so even the completely unqualified are able to express what they take to be actual views on the matter...

[hawkeye2009]

Originally Posted by saganista

Another in what has become a very long sequence of red flags. Failure to be able to distinguish between very short term global warming effects and those processes of natural climate variation that occur over thousands and millions of years ought to be a disqualifier from the discussion, as it indicates a level of comprehension that would be unduly praised in being called negligible. But we do have freedom of speech in this country, so even the completely unqualified are able to express what they take to be actual views on the matter...

It is interesting what people call "long term" and "short term" in geologic history. The global warming nuts are essentially trying to examine Mount Rushmore with thier faces plastered up against Washington's nose.


Take a look at the fossil record and talk to me a million years later. At than time, you will have a small sampling size upon which you can make a reasonable assumption. I will be the mummifed dust at the bottom of the glacier, so that you can recognize me.

[saganista]

Originally Posted by sanrene

You mean, on the basis of a theory.

You are digging the hole ever deeper. There are no explanatory statements stronger than theories. There are many leagues that you are out of, but this has certainly been one of them...