This Antarctic glacier is cracking from the inside out — and that’s bad news for all of us

I want Trumps administration to weigh in. If they say global warming was invented by the Chinese to cripple the US economy, then so it is

Pin prick on a mile long beach. The planet is really, really big by the way.

a reply to: amazing

You'll tell me not to blindly believe and do my own research. So I do, and I keep coming up with scientists, lot's of different ones from all sorts of countries and universities and scientific organizations and they keep telling me this. So what now?

Research involves more than reading Internet articles. It also consists of applying what you read to reality.

Miami is built on a sandbar. That is just fact, and can be verified by looking at large building plans (specifically the foundation work that has to be done to make them stable) or simply by digging a hole in the Miami area. You'll dig up mostly sand. Now, if you were to pour enough sand in a small pool to make a sandbar, how much weight would it hold? The answer is very little. You could weigh it down at first if you applied weight gradually, but over time the sand would slowly give.

That's something you don't need a scientific opinion on. You can try it yourself.

Another thing you can try is taking a small pool and pouring a few gallons of water in it. The water level will rise. But it will rise everywhere in the pool the same amount. The water won't stay where you pour it, and it won't stick up above the rest of the water somewhere else. It will contribute to an overall rise. Now suppose one side of the pool is Miami and the other side is, say, South Africa. Both sides will see the exact same water level rise.

If Miami is expecting a four foot rise in sea level, so is every other coastline in the world. But we don't hear about other coastlines... only select areas, like Miami.

The only logical solution is that the land is lowering, and recent building in the area that coincides with the flooding problem bears that out.

TheRedneck

I will say Al Gore and others with their laughable, transparent money making schemes have soured this topic greatly and hurt those who are concerned far more than most want to admit. It's hard to have an honest discussion with people like that in the mix.

First step is to shovel out that crap so the table is clean and then maybe progress can be made and we can have a real discussion about how to deal with climate change. As long as radicals and confidence persons are involved and scientists who sold out and falsified data as was proven in the email scandals, people are just going to butt heads.

a reply to: Blaine91555

To be honest, I'd prefer if people stopped bringing up Al Gore altogether. All too often Al Gore and various Democratic politicians along with their ideas are used as scapegoats to deny the science. That is poor arguing. If you want to debate the politics, first accept the science then step to the table with your own solutions. But that is never done. Therefore I usually start tuning people out if they mention Gore or carbon credits.

Also throw in Climategate (both versions). Why people think that is still a valid response after it was debunked NUMEROUS times is baffling to me.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

That is a poor debate tactic, agreed. But it is no more so than him getting involved in the first place.

Like it or not, Global Warming proponents chose Albert Gore Jr. as a spokesperson many years ago. They also chose to use a transparent advertising campaign full of questionable statements before that. The whole theory was commercialized, sanitized, and packaged in a nice neat little easy-to-swallow pill. I remember the national advertising campaign that used 5-second spots to announce something huge was coming, building anticipation for what would then be announced as a carbon footprint.

Then, of course, "An Inconvenient Truth," one of the most laughable attempts to make a politician look like a scientist I have ever seen, was released to a massive round of accolades. For a while, Gore was hailed as the next coming of Einstein in the MSM. I had the opposite opinion: I was actually getting on board the fiery flood train until I watched it. You can blame Gore for waking me up. The more I tried to validate his statements, the more I realized what a load of poppy-cock Global Warming was. Now here we are, many years later, well past the time frame we were originally supposed to need a new hurricane scale to measure superstorms, cities were supposed to be underwater, and drought was supposed to have caused a massive worldwide famine.

I'm quite sure everyone advocating the theory wishes Gore would go away. But it just doesn't work like that. Global Warming was introduced to the public using him as a spokesman, and political pressure was used to try and ram ridiculous 'solutions' down people's throats. You don't get do-overs in politics, and you don't get to wipe out previous claims in science. What's done is done.

If you want to 'tune out' anyone who brings up Al Gore, that's your prerogative. But I for one am not going to tune out history.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck
Well I care about the sanctity of scientific debate. And in scientific debate you acknowledge the mistakes and cast them out so as to make room for discussion of newer ideas. I can't speak for Al Gore and I can't control what he does. I CAN control my actions and my inputs. Thus I demand a high standard of evidence and not to mention try to adhere to proper logical analysis whenever possible. Mixing politics and science is the same as mixing oil and water. If you are doing it, you are wrong.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Mixing politics and science is the same as mixing oil and water. If you are doing it, you are wrong.

Agreed, 100%.

I am actually interested in the results from climate studies. Knowledge is always a good thing, and might possibly lead to ideas on how to improve our environment. The scientists are getting closer to realistic models.

Sadly, however, that is not what the Global Warming debate is all about. It is about fear and panic and political agendas.

You may be interested for the same reasons I am, and if so I applaud your interest. We may even disagree on the interpretations of the results, and I can still applaud you. Unfortunately it is becoming quite difficult to maintain such scientific debates in the face of poli-sci fanatics that want to use a theory as a sledge hammer to force agendas. Get the answers, then talk to me about potential solutions; I'll be happy to listen at that point.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Krazysh0t

"Run for the hills the sea level is going to rise and inch over the next few decades and we are all going to die!!!" is not a way to attract the attention of anyone in a serious way.

When I was young I had to sit through lectures in college about how all the trees will be dead in thirty years, the arable land will be gone by then and massive starvation will be underway. The oil will run out by 2010 and there will be no more fresh water. Anyone my age remembers that and it makes it hard to take these topics seriously, when it was the same so called experts sounding the alarm then as it is now. Scientists who were more political radicals than scientists and their opinions came to mean nothing and rightly so. They were liar's plain and simple. They spouted truths that were simply not true. It does not help that they never stepped up to the plate and said as a group, we had it all wrong and we taught you that things were facts that were only opinion.

Fast forward another forty or so years and I can't help but wonder if we won't be finding out that the current crop of the Earth is ending experts are just as wrong. There is strong evidence from the past that they may well be entirely wrong.

It seems each new generation of the academic elites believes they have all the truths in hand and can't possibly be wrong and by god the world needs to bow down to them. Because they are so special you know as they mistakenly mix their own personal biases and politics in with science bastardizing it and usually doing it with money as the goal.

When the conversation evolves from it WILL happen, to it may happen but we don't have enough data yet to know for a fact its true, then maybe some honest discussion can take place.

Activism and real science are like "oil and water".

a reply to: TheRedneck

Adding another element into the equation is man made terra forming. Some area are disappearing because they are having the sand sucked out from right under them.