Science WILL Matter to so many DUMBASSES

[Amazon 7]

lawrocket

******

Quote

As a science expert, I am sure I do not have to tell you the difference between shelf ice and sheet ice and the effects of each on sea level. And as a sciency scientist who scientifically sciences science and sciences the antiscience antiscientists, I am sure that you can understand that there is no direct connection between the breakup of shelf ice and sea level.

I shake my head at how little science itself matters to those who espouse it the most. The science isn't what you think it is.

If the Antarctic Ice sheet melts completely? Yeah. When the average temperature of Antarctica picks up by 30 degrees then we can wait another few thousand years for it to all melt. How about focusing on more immediate issues? Things that will happen well before Antarctica becomes a tropical paradise. Like Crater Lake being emptied by a volcanic eruption. Or Rainier melting all the ice on it before anthropogenic CO2 gets a chance.

Try pulling some actual science and reason into this. Here's an if: if a mile wide asteroid hit the earth before 4000 AD it may lead to a mass extinction.

Guess which is more likely to happen. An asteroid hitting us or the Antarctic ice sheet melting? If you said "asteroid" then you are correct.

Well played, Sir... well played.

No... you have to actually READ the information in the article..... I know that is tough for some people.....


In 2002, two-thirds of the Larsen B Ice Shelf, located along the east coast of the Antarctic Peninsula, collapsed in a span of less than six weeks. According to a new NASA study, the remains of this ancient structure, which has existed for over 10,000 years, are likely to disintegrate completely before the end of the decade -- an event that would significantly contribute to global sea level rise.

“These are warning signs that the remnant is disintegrating,” Ala Khazendar from NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California, who led the study, said in a statement. “Although it’s fascinating scientifically to have a front-row seat to watch the ice shelf becoming unstable and breaking up, it’s bad news for our planet.”

Several recent studies have spotted an uptick in the melting of Antarctica’s floating ice shelves, which act as doorstops and hold back its glaciers and ice sheets from spreading outward into oceans. In some regions, the thickness of these shelves has fallen by as much as 18 percent over the past 18 years -- a process that has accelerated over the last decade.

I read the article. Another one of those pieces of rhetorical distorted slanted pieces that pushes a load of crap that preys on the ignorance of people who are too egotistical to know that they are ignorant. You know? The ones who think they are pro science because they agree with him the political interpretation of the reporter's interpretation of the scientist' press release about the science.

The article was about shelf ice. Then talked about the melting of sheet ice.

Shelf ice acts as a stopper for Glaciers. Meaning that they are part of a damned system that advances and retreats. Ice shelves break up. Then they regenerate. Then they break up. It happens. That is how it goes. How it works.

We've seen ice shelves break up before. We've seen Glaciers calve before. It's how it goes.

Gravity..... it matters. So we will just sit back and see... carry on.... Your brilliance in climatology is just stunning... ???

[Anvilbrother 0]

Amazon

*********

Quote

As a science expert, I am sure I do not have to tell you the difference between shelf ice and sheet ice and the effects of each on sea level. And as a sciency scientist who scientifically sciences science and sciences the antiscience antiscientists, I am sure that you can understand that there is no direct connection between the breakup of shelf ice and sea level.

I shake my head at how little science itself matters to those who espouse it the most. The science isn't what you think it is.

If the Antarctic Ice sheet melts completely? Yeah. When the average temperature of Antarctica picks up by 30 degrees then we can wait another few thousand years for it to all melt. How about focusing on more immediate issues? Things that will happen well before Antarctica becomes a tropical paradise. Like Crater Lake being emptied by a volcanic eruption. Or Rainier melting all the ice on it before anthropogenic CO2 gets a chance.

Try pulling some actual science and reason into this. Here's an if: if a mile wide asteroid hit the earth before 4000 AD it may lead to a mass extinction.

Guess which is more likely to happen. An asteroid hitting us or the Antarctic ice sheet melting? If you said "asteroid" then you are correct.

Well played, Sir... well played.

No... you have to actually READ the information in the article..... I know that is tough for some people.....


In 2002, two-thirds of the Larsen B Ice Shelf, located along the east coast of the Antarctic Peninsula, collapsed in a span of less than six weeks. According to a new NASA study, the remains of this ancient structure, which has existed for over 10,000 years, are likely to disintegrate completely before the end of the decade -- an event that would significantly contribute to global sea level rise.

“These are warning signs that the remnant is disintegrating,” Ala Khazendar from NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California, who led the study, said in a statement. “Although it’s fascinating scientifically to have a front-row seat to watch the ice shelf becoming unstable and breaking up, it’s bad news for our planet.”

Several recent studies have spotted an uptick in the melting of Antarctica’s floating ice shelves, which act as doorstops and hold back its glaciers and ice sheets from spreading outward into oceans. In some regions, the thickness of these shelves has fallen by as much as 18 percent over the past 18 years -- a process that has accelerated over the last decade.

I read the article. Another one of those pieces of rhetorical distorted slanted pieces that pushes a load of crap that preys on the ignorance of people who are too egotistical to know that they are ignorant. You know? The ones who think they are pro science because they agree with him the political interpretation of the reporter's interpretation of the scientist' press release about the science.

The article was about shelf ice. Then talked about the melting of sheet ice.

Shelf ice acts as a stopper for Glaciers. Meaning that they are part of a damned system that advances and retreats. Ice shelves break up. Then they regenerate. Then they break up. It happens. That is how it goes. How it works.

We've seen ice shelves break up before. We've seen Glaciers calve before. It's how it goes.

Gravity..... it matters. So we will just sit back and see... carry on.... Your brilliance in climatology is just stunning... ???

Glad your finally acknowledging that he knows more than you on the subject. It's plain as day to us thats how it is.

Postes r made from an iPad or iPhone. Spelling and gramhair mistakes guaranteed move along,

[brenthutch 444]

Amazon makes me laugh. Thank you Amazon.

[Amazon 7]

Anvilbrother

************

Quote

As a science expert, I am sure I do not have to tell you the difference between shelf ice and sheet ice and the effects of each on sea level. And as a sciency scientist who scientifically sciences science and sciences the antiscience antiscientists, I am sure that you can understand that there is no direct connection between the breakup of shelf ice and sea level.

I shake my head at how little science itself matters to those who espouse it the most. The science isn't what you think it is.

If the Antarctic Ice sheet melts completely? Yeah. When the average temperature of Antarctica picks up by 30 degrees then we can wait another few thousand years for it to all melt. How about focusing on more immediate issues? Things that will happen well before Antarctica becomes a tropical paradise. Like Crater Lake being emptied by a volcanic eruption. Or Rainier melting all the ice on it before anthropogenic CO2 gets a chance.

Try pulling some actual science and reason into this. Here's an if: if a mile wide asteroid hit the earth before 4000 AD it may lead to a mass extinction.

Guess which is more likely to happen. An asteroid hitting us or the Antarctic ice sheet melting? If you said "asteroid" then you are correct.

Well played, Sir... well played.

No... you have to actually READ the information in the article..... I know that is tough for some people.....


In 2002, two-thirds of the Larsen B Ice Shelf, located along the east coast of the Antarctic Peninsula, collapsed in a span of less than six weeks. According to a new NASA study, the remains of this ancient structure, which has existed for over 10,000 years, are likely to disintegrate completely before the end of the decade -- an event that would significantly contribute to global sea level rise.

“These are warning signs that the remnant is disintegrating,” Ala Khazendar from NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California, who led the study, said in a statement. “Although it’s fascinating scientifically to have a front-row seat to watch the ice shelf becoming unstable and breaking up, it’s bad news for our planet.”

Several recent studies have spotted an uptick in the melting of Antarctica’s floating ice shelves, which act as doorstops and hold back its glaciers and ice sheets from spreading outward into oceans. In some regions, the thickness of these shelves has fallen by as much as 18 percent over the past 18 years -- a process that has accelerated over the last decade.

I read the article. Another one of those pieces of rhetorical distorted slanted pieces that pushes a load of crap that preys on the ignorance of people who are too egotistical to know that they are ignorant. You know? The ones who think they are pro science because they agree with him the political interpretation of the reporter's interpretation of the scientist' press release about the science.

The article was about shelf ice. Then talked about the melting of sheet ice.

Shelf ice acts as a stopper for Glaciers. Meaning that they are part of a damned system that advances and retreats. Ice shelves break up. Then they regenerate. Then they break up. It happens. That is how it goes. How it works.

We've seen ice shelves break up before. We've seen Glaciers calve before. It's how it goes.

Gravity..... it matters. So we will just sit back and see... carry on.... Your brilliance in climatology is just stunning... ???

Glad your finally acknowledging that he knows more than you on the subject. It's plain as day to us thats how it is.

Comprehension problems yet again there're little fella...???

[Anvilbrother 0]

That spring mountain water must contain traces of lead, you seem to be stuck on repeat.

Postes r made from an iPad or iPhone. Spelling and gramhair mistakes guaranteed move along,

[billvon 3,116]

Quote

This is a very fine philosophy. What reasonable person doesn't think we should do what we can for the sake of doing what we can? It's correct.

It's when the "in the name of protecting the earth you should all have your energy bills skyrocket" that we start thinking that there are issues.

So you are all for doing whatever you can - as long as it doesn't affect you personally?

Quote

Taking care of these things are comfortable things. The comfortable worry about this stuff.

Yes, because we can afford to look more than a year in the future. Someone who doesn't know where their next meal is going to come from does not have that luxury.

We have the money - and with that money comes responsibility. We can use our money to continue to destroy the environment, or we can use our money to make the world a better place.

Quote

Haiti is a fine example. It was deforested by people just trying to survive. Tell them to leave he trees alone and suffer even more.

Right. (Hopefully you are not comparing yourself to a Haitian; that would be absurd.) You can pay twice as much for food and have your standard of living barely move. The Haitian, in the same situation, would be dead. Which is why we "rich people" (relatively speaking) have the responsibility to lead the change - both because we are causing the problem and because we can afford to fix it.

[BartsDaddy 7]

billvon

Quote

This is a very fine philosophy. What reasonable person doesn't think we should do what we can for the sake of doing what we can? It's correct.

It's when the "in the name of protecting the earth you should all have your energy bills skyrocket" that we start thinking that there are issues.

So you are all for doing whatever you can - as long as it doesn't affect you personally?
***Taking care of these things are comfortable things. The comfortable worry about this stuff.

Yes, because we can afford to look more than a year in the future. Someone who doesn't know where their next meal is going to come from does not have that luxury.

We have the money - and with that money comes responsibility. We can use our money to continue to destroy the environment, or we can use our money to make the world a better place.

Quote

Haiti is a fine example. It was deforested by people just trying to survive. Tell them to leave he trees alone and suffer even more.

Right. (Hopefully you are not comparing yourself to a Haitian; that would be absurd.) You can pay twice as much for food and have your standard of living barely move. The Haitian, in the same situation, would be dead. Which is why we "rich people" (relatively speaking) have the responsibility to lead the change - both because we are causing the problem and because we can afford to fix it.
I love it when somebody who is we'll off financially tell everybody else what they should be able to afford. Look in your checkbook and see what you can afford. You have no clue what I can afford.
China supposedly has the biggest economy now what steps are they agreeing to. I mean they have the money.

Handguns are only used to fight your way to a good rifle

[billvon 3,116]

>I love it when somebody who is we'll off financially tell everybody else what they
>should be able to afford. Look in your checkbook and see what you can afford. You
>have no clue what I can afford.

I know you can afford a computer and an Internet connection and the time to post. You can probably afford to skydive. That makes you richer than 90% of the people on the planet.

>China supposedly has the biggest economy now what steps are they agreeing to.

Agreed to halt their emissions increases by 2030
Mandatory carbon emission trading in five cities
Requiring carbon capture and sequestration systems (CCS) for new coal plants
Largest producer of solar-PV and wind turbines in the world
Euro IV standards for vehicle emissions (more stringent than the US)
13% of China's energy comes from renewables; goal is 20% by 2020
Building 32 new nuclear reactors
2011 - $375 billion in state funds for energy efficiency programs
2013 - Air Pollution Control Action Plan. Coal limits, bans new coal power plants in large cities.
2014 - $277 billion for emissions controls for industrial plants

[lawrocket 3]

billvon

Quote

This is a very fine philosophy. What reasonable person doesn't think we should do what we can for the sake of doing what we can? It's correct.

It's when the "in the name of protecting the earth you should all have your energy bills skyrocket" that we start thinking that there are issues.

So you are all for doing whatever you can - as long as it doesn't affect you personally?

Whatever I can? I'm doing whatever I am. Whether it be shutting off sprinklers and painting the lawn or just buying g a large fan for keeping cool. It's a money issue already. I don't tell others what to do or how to do it. I tend to think that they know what the can swing monetarily.

Quote

***Taking care of these things are comfortable things. The comfortable worry about this stuff.

Yes, because we can afford to look more than a year in the future. Someone who doesn't know where their next meal is going to come from does not have that luxury.

We have the money - and with that money comes responsibility. We can use our money to continue to destroy the environment, or we can use our money to make the world a better place.

Who a "we?" I think people tend to believe that others are similarly situated. It's policy. There is no best for everyone.

Quote

***Haiti is a fine example. It was deforested by people just trying to survive. Tell them to leave he trees alone and suffer even more.

Right. (Hopefully you are not comparing yourself to a Haitian; that would be absurd.) You can pay twice as much for food and have your standard of living barely move. The Haitian, in the same situation, would be dead. Which is why we "rich people" (relatively speaking) have the responsibility to lead the change - both because we are causing the problem and because we can afford to fix it.

That may be true for me. Not for others. I am not comparing myself to a Haitian. I am suggesting that saving the world at the expense of many people is a problem.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[brenthutch 444]

Bill can afford more because we (the tax payer) subsidize his car and electric bill.

[airdvr 210]

It's a carbon based economy and you would have us tear it down. Never gonna happen. And...if you think China will actually follow through with some promised plan you need a history lesson. Smoke and mirrors.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[Andy9o8 2]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=eeNsPE5XUXA

(re-read your post)

[Amazon 7]

brenthutch

Amazon makes me laugh. Thank you Amazon.

I feel so very sorry for all of you..... Your world is changing beyond your ability to cope with it.

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

billvon

>I love it when somebody who is we'll off financially tell everybody else what they
>should be able to afford. Look in your checkbook and see what you can afford. You
>have no clue what I can afford.

I know you can afford a computer and an Internet connection and the time to post. You can probably afford to skydive. That makes you richer than 90% of the people on the planet.

>China supposedly has the biggest economy now what steps are they agreeing to.

Agreed to halt their emissions increases by 2030
Mandatory carbon emission trading in five cities
Requiring carbon capture and sequestration systems (CCS) for new coal plants
Largest producer of solar-PV and wind turbines in the world
Euro IV standards for vehicle emissions (more stringent than the US)
13% of China's energy comes from renewables; goal is 20% by 2020
Building 32 new nuclear reactors
2011 - $375 billion in state funds for energy efficiency programs
2013 - Air Pollution Control Action Plan. Coal limits, bans new coal power plants in large cities.
2014 - $277 billion for emissions controls for industrial plants

And China is so corrupt that none of this will be effectively enforced.

They have virtually no environmental regulations, at least none that can't be circumvented with a bit of a bribe to local officials.

They are so polluted they make LA in the early 70's look pristine.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[lawrocket 3]

Amazon

***Amazon makes me laugh. Thank you Amazon.

I feel so very sorry for all of you..... Your world is changing beyond your ability to cope with it.

Weird. The others seem to be coping just fine. You're the one who seems reactionary in your ability to cope with progress. Like a true red states, you want things to go back tk the way they were in the old days. Disraeli said that change is constant and inevitable. Some people roll with it. Others get all pissed.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Amazon 7]

lawrocket

******Amazon makes me laugh. Thank you Amazon.

I feel so very sorry for all of you..... Your world is changing beyond your ability to cope with it.

Weird. The others seem to be coping just fine. You're the one who seems reactionary in your ability to cope with progress. Like a true red states, you want things to go back tk the way they were in the old days. Disraeli said that change is constant and inevitable. Some people roll with it. Others get all pissed.

Humans and most other animal species evolved to live within a given set of conditions... ones that require a similar set of conditions for continued survival.



I am down for change..... Bring it on..

[lawrocket 3]

Amazon

*********Amazon makes me laugh. Thank you Amazon.

I feel so very sorry for all of you..... Your world is changing beyond your ability to cope with it.

Weird. The others seem to be coping just fine. You're the one who seems reactionary in your ability to cope with progress. Like a true red states, you want things to go back tk the way they were in the old days. Disraeli said that change is constant and inevitable. Some people roll with it. Others get all pissed.

Humans and most other animal species evolved to live within a given set of conditions... ones that require a similar set of conditions for continued survival.



I am down for change..... Bring it on..

Your point to is true only if humans and the earth have been around for 6k years. Personally, I am not a religious fanatic as you appear to be. And I find no way to disprove the notion that home erectus was around 1.5 million years ago. And that anatomically modern humans have been around for 200k years or so.

Unlike you, I actually trust science. I don't view wattsupwiththat with any more trust than I do climateprogress or other flippant rag. And the science indicates vast and rapid climate changes over the last couple of million years. And humans adapted. I know, the historical evidence goes against your religious beliefs that the earth was eden until the GOP was formed but the evidence is the evidence.

And for a little experiment about how bad warmth is for life compared to cold, take some seeds and plant them in pots. Put one pot inside a freezer with full spectrum lighting. Put another inside a fridge with full spectrum lighting. Put another in your house with that lighting. A D put another in a green house.

Take a guess as to which is the best for maintaining life. You'll note that the warmer it gets the more humans are around.

One helpful thing is that you won't be around when AGW climate catastrophe hits. Neither will I or my children or grandchildren or great grandchildren. They will likely look back with great bemusement at the folly of our generation. Or sadness. Kinda like how we look at nuclear power now. The whole idea that as we reassess it and get out of the moron rhetoric of two score years ago that we probably should have looked closer at the actual science and engineering.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[BartsDaddy 7]

billvon

>I love it when somebody who is we'll off financially tell everybody else what they
>should be able to afford. Look in your checkbook and see what you can afford. You
>have no clue what I can afford.

I know you can afford a computer and an Internet connection and the time to post. You can probably afford to skydive. That makes you richer than 90% of the people on the planet.

>China supposedly has the biggest economy now what steps are they agreeing to.

Agreed to halt their emissions increases by 2030
Mandatory carbon emission trading in five cities
Requiring carbon capture and sequestration systems (CCS) for new coal plants
Largest producer of solar-PV and wind turbines in the world
Euro IV standards for vehicle emissions (more stringent than the US)
13% of China's energy comes from renewables; goal is 20% by 2020
Building 32 new nuclear reactors
2011 - $375 billion in state funds for energy efficiency programs
2013 - Air Pollution Control Action Plan. Coal limits, bans new coal power plants in large cities.
2014 - $277 billion for emissions controls for industrial plants

Wrong again I do not own a computer. My employer provides me one. as far as skydiving have not done that in yerars because I do not have the time or money to stay safe in the sport.

So China agrees to stop the emision increases by 2030. so they can continue to increase emisions for another 15 years

Handguns are only used to fight your way to a good rifle

[billvon 3,116]

>Bill can afford more because we (the tax payer) subsidize his car and electric bill.

Yep. And I subsidized your war, which cost a lot more than EV's do.

But if you send me a check for my part of the war, I'd be happy to send you a check for your part of my EV.

[billvon 3,116]

>It's a carbon based economy and you would have us tear it down.

Yes. I'd have us replace it with something better. We replaced horses with cars; do you lament the tearing down of the equine based transportation system?

>And...if you think China will actually follow through with some promised plan you need a
>history lesson. Smoke and mirrors.

Too late. They've done about half the things in that list already.

[Anvilbrother 0]

Quote

And I subsidized your war,

Ooh PLEASE you act like republicans were the only ones

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution
Democratic YEAS 82 NAYS 126 NOT VOTING 1

72% Americans support war
http://www.gallup.com/poll/8038/seventytwo-percent-americans-support-war-against-iraq.aspx

Can we shut the fuck up about your war, our war his war! Majority of Americans and politicians wanted it including 82 votes from your side so take that bullshit elsewhere.

Postes r made from an iPad or iPhone. Spelling and gramhair mistakes guaranteed move along,

[Amazon 7]

Anvilbrother

Quote

And I subsidized your war,

Ooh PLEASE you act like republicans were the only ones

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution
Democratic YEAS 82 NAYS 126 NOT VOTING 1

72% Americans support war
http://www.gallup.com/poll/8038/seventytwo-percent-americans-support-war-against-iraq.aspx

Can we shut the fuck up about your war, our war his war! Majority of Americans and politicians wanted it including 82 votes from your side so take that bullshit elsewhere.

The way the information was packaged by the chickenhawks in the administration, very few had the fortitude to call it goat fuck stupid and not make the rush to war. Plus it was other peoples children going to war.... not theirs... following in their well trodden footsteps of their parents running the other direction out of harms way

[Anvilbrother 0]

39% of your people vote for it and 72% of Americans supported sending THEIR children to war. Cry all you want, at the time it was done it was almost fucking unanimous in the United States.

Postes r made from an iPad or iPhone. Spelling and gramhair mistakes guaranteed move along,

[Amazon 7]

Anvilbrother

39% of your people vote for it and 72% of Americans supported sending THEIR children to war. Cry all you want, at the time it was done it was almost fucking unanimous in the United States.

There you go assuming again little fella...

[turtlespeed 226]

Amazon

***39% of your people vote for it and 72% of Americans supported sending THEIR children to war. Cry all you want, at the time it was done it was almost fucking unanimous in the United States.

There you go assuming again little fella...

There you go insulting again.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun