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.
I'm not ignoring anything...your link says it's the 6th lowest...is it the 6th lowest or not?
If it's the 6th lowest...then 5 times it's been lower....so melt is not increasing
You are indeed ignoring something - in fact, you are ignoring the most crucial things of all, namely, basic science and basic logic. The key concern is loss of ice volume (i.e., the overall actual loss of ice) not the loss of ice coverage on the surface. The surface coverage can be deceptive (it can temporarily rise, despite the overall loss of volume).
And, on top of that, you keep ignoring the glaring fact that 6th lowest is still really low. No one is predicting that ice coverage will steadily decline every single year. Complex real world systems are rarely that simple. Natural fluctuations are to be expected. Overall, we are losing ice. The overall trend is distinctly downward.
Just curious: Is there anyone else in this thread who wants to deny that we are losing ice at the North Pole? Or is Corrie22 the only one? I know that a bunch of your will deny that this loss of ice is evidence for AGW but, for the moment, I'm just trying to see if anyone, other than Corrie22, wants to deny that we are, in fact, losing ice.
You are indeed ignoring something - in fact, you are ignoring the most crucial things of all, namely, basic science and basic logic. The key concern is loss of ice volume (i.e., the overall actual loss of ice) not the loss of ice coverage on the surface. The surface coverage can be deceptive (it can temporarily rise, despite the overall loss of volume).
And, on top of that, you keep ignoring the glaring fact that 6th lowest is still really low. No one is predicting that ice coverage will steadily decline every single year. Complex real world systems are rarely that simple. Natural fluctuations are to be expected. Overall, we are losing ice. The overall trend is distinctly downward.
Just curious: Is there anyone else in this thread who wants to deny that we are losing ice at the North Pole? Or is Corrie22 the only one? I know that a bunch of your will deny that this loss of ice is evidence for AGW but, for the moment, I'm just trying to see if anyone, other than Corrie22, wants to deny that we are, in fact, losing ice.
We have lost ice across North America and the Arctic since the peak of the last ice age some 12,000-20,000 years ago. That is a fact.
It’s pretty much like the patient whose doctor said medical tests indicated stage 3 cancer and recommended a course of life saving treatment. The patient gets emotional calls the doctor a quack and just ignores the situation. The planet’s at stage 3 and we have about 100 years or so before a catastrophe occurs. The devastation wrought by man made climate change is the single greatest threat faced by humanity.
Its also a reflection on how the right wing will just chuck out science they don't like. Honestly what do they gain by denying climate change? The only ones who benefit are the giant fossil fuel companies who don't care about environmental damage because at the end of the day profits rule there decision making. Thats one of the big problems with capitalism unchecked profits will always come over people.
Its also a reflection on how the right wing will just chuck out science they don't like. Honestly what do they gain by denying climate change? The only ones who benefit are the giant fossil fuel companies who don't care about environmental damage because at the end of the day profits rule there decision making. Thats one of the big problems with capitalism unchecked profits will always come over people.
As you know very well, nobody is denying that the climate changes, and has been doing so constantly for billions of years. You guys really do yourself a severe disservice to your credibility on this subject when you push this narrative which you obviously know is not true.
As you know very well, nobody is denying that the climate changes, and has been doing so constantly for billions of years. You guys really do yourself a severe disservice to your credibility on this subject when you push this narrative which you obviously know is not true.
So you seriously think that 7 billion humans and all our industry have done nothing to the climate?
As you know very well, nobody is denying that the climate changes, and has been doing so constantly for billions of years. You guys really do yourself a severe disservice to your credibility on this subject when you push this narrative which you obviously know is not true.
So, when a leading GOP political figure claims that "[t]he concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive" you take that to mean...?
So you seriously think that 7 billion humans and all our industry have done nothing to the climate?
So you seriously think that all 7 billions are going to perish in a flaming cauldron of uncontrollable panic and disaster if we do not capitulate to the financial ransom demands of the radical left under the guise of an environmental protection regime?
So, when a leading GOP political figure claims that "[t]he concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive" you take that to mean...?
You will need to get with him or her on that. I am not a Republican, and I am certainly not an apologist for every anonymous quote or paraphrase that you pick up off of the internet somewhere.
So you seriously think that all 7 billions are going to perish in a flaming cauldron of uncontrollable panic and disaster if we do not capitulate to the financial ransom demands of the radical left under the guise of environmental protection rhetoric?
Did you know there is a middle ground between "all 7 billions are going to perish in a flaming cauldron of uncontrollable panic and disaster" and "the climate is not affected by pollution and other human activities"? I know its hard, but imagine a world where you weren't constrained the binary choice between two incredibly extreme views.
You will need to get with him or her on that. I am not a Republican, and I am certainly not an apologist for every anonymous quote or paraphrase that you pick up off of the internet somewhere.
Its not an anonymous quote. Its a fairly well reported statement tweeted by Donald Trump. You may have heard of him.
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.
