It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Huge Ice Shelf Breaks Loose in Canada

page: 2
2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 10:11 AM
link   
Labelling someone or something as Neoconservative does not necessarily mean they are wrong, it means that there is a likelyhood of bias, but not necessarily.

The fact is that the same could be said for the sources provided refuting my claims. That they are politically biased. If that is the case then we should all just put down our pens and give up because we will just keep going around in circles, never quite coming to a conclusion because everyone is too worried about political affiliation.

Chess anyone?

[edit on 4/9/2008 by Kryties]




posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 10:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kryties
There is clear evidence of a 1500 (+/- 500) year cycle of warming and cooling. The very fact that the Earth warms and cools, creating climate change in various parts, detracts from your claim that this is a modern-day phenomena.

Example 1:

From National Centre for Policy Analysis

Human activities have little to do with the Earth's current warming trend, according to a study published by the National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA). In fact, S. Fred Singer (University of Virginia) and Dennis Avery (Hudson Institute) conclude that global warming and cooling seem to be part of a 1,500-year cycle of moderate temperature swings.

Look at your source. This is not science, or a scientific group. It is a conservative think tank.

The National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA) is a think tank. It is a "communications and research foundation dedicated to providing free market solutions to today's public policy problems ... [and] prides itself on aggressively marketing its products for maximum impact by 'targeting key political leaders and special interest groups, establishing on-going ties with members of the print and electronic media, and testifying before Congress, federal agencies, state lawmakers, and national organizations.'" -- NCRP, The Strategic Philanthropy of Conservative Foundations

Funded by these people......

DaimlerChrysler Corporation Fund
El Paso Energy Foundation
ExxonMobil Foundation
Eli Lilly and Company Foundation
Lilly Endowment
Procter & Gamble Fund
Funny that, a right wing think tank funded by oil, energy and automotive interests.SOURCE WATCH


* An ice core from the Antarctic's Vostok Glacier -- at the other end of the world from Greenland -- showed the same 1,500-year cycle through its 400,000-year length.
* The ice-core findings correlated with known glacier advances and retreats in northern Europe.
* Independent data in a seabed sediment core from the Atlantic Ocean west of Ireland, reported in 1997, showed nine of the 1,500-year cycles in the last 12,000 years.
Dude, read the above. They are getting these ice cores and seeing natural cycles of cooling and warming from atmospheric samples inbeded in the ice over thousands of years. The ICE they are getting this from is dissapearing. How do you compare ICE that traps atmospheric conditions to conditions that will deteriorate the ice to the point where the cycle will not continue, that is what is happening. Read the reports i have linked in the OP.
Look at reports on sea temperatures, CO2 absorbtion in Ocean. That match Atmospheric increases and GW gases and models and observed prediction being observed.

Considered collectively, there is clear and convincing evidence of a 1,500-year climate cycle. And if the current warming trend is part of an entirely natural cycle, as Singer and Avery conclude, then actions to prevent further warming would be futile, could impose substantial costs upon the global economy and lessen the ability of the world's peoples to adapt to the impacts of climate change.

Source: S. Fred Singer and Dennis T. Avery, "The Physical Evidence of Earth's Unstoppable 1,500-Year Climate Cycle," National Center for Policy Analysis, Policy Report No. 279, September 29, 2005Your source was written by and for a think tank. The Hudson Institute is another think tank. The vast majority of articles that attack global warming come from these groups. The reason you found these is that you are quote mining for pro arguements. The fact that you do not have links to independant scientific organisations is because no science supports this. Period.



Hudson Institute discussion presents significant evidence challenging warming alarmism

The Hudson Institute is a think tank headquartered in Washington D.C.
While describing itself as "non-partisan" and preferring to portray itself as independently "contrarian" rather than as a conservative think tank, the Hudson Institute gains financial support from many of the foundations and corporations that have bankrolled the conservative movement. The Capital Research Center, a conservative group that seeks to rank non-profits and documents their funding, allocates Hudson as a 7 on its ideological spectrum with 8 being "Free Market Right" and 1 "Radical Left." [1]
Hudson has traditionally had a strong focus on U.S. domestic policies such as national defense, education, crime, immigration, welfare, pesticides and biotechnology. However, in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks it has substantially boosted its focus on international issues such as the Middle East, Latin America and Islam. Think Tank. Avery is an Agricultural Economist, not a scientist....... senior fellow hey? paid by these people.

Ag Processing Inc
American Crop Protection Association
American Cyanamid
CropLife International
DowElanco
DuPont
Eli Lilly and Company
Exxon Mobil
General Electric Fund
Monsanto
National Agricultural Chemical Association
Novartis
PayPal
PhRMA
Procter & Gamble
Sunkist Growers
Syngenta Crop Protection
United Agri Products

Wow look at all those huge Agribuisnesses paying Mr Avery.
.



Dennis Avery, senior fellow at the Hudson Institute, an agricultural economist not unprecedented.

Additionally, scientific analysis of ice cores from Greenland and the Antarctic found that there is a clear record of a moderate, abrupt 1500-year climate change cycle running all the way through all the major warmings and all the ice ages. Cores taken from the seabed of six oceans, including the Atlantic, the Pacific and the Arabian Sea have also revealed the same unmistakable 1500-year cycle.
The heat trends over the last ^) years caused by Man are not moderate changes, as evident in my OP. If this peroid was to be captured in this cysle you love talking about it would be considered an anomaly when compared to previous warming trends. This think tank is using historical trends to explain GW without adresssing Gas emmisions and observed warming in conjunction with Gas emission increases.




Avery and Singer, a professor emeritus of environmental research at the University of Virginia and the former first director of the U.S. National Weather Satellite Service, have concluded that the alarmist predictions about how much the earth will warm in the near future are based on a radical overestimate of how much carbon dioxide changes the earth's temperatures.

While no doubt his work as an atmospheric physicist is solid he also claims this

Singer is skeptical of scientific findings on human-induced global warming, the connection between CFCs and ozone depletion[14], and the link between second hand smoke and lung cancer. Singer has also worked with organizations with similar views, such as the Independent Institute, the American Council on Science and Health, Frontiers of Freedom, the Marshall Institute, the National Center for Policy Analysis, and the Science & Environmental Policy Project, which Singer founded.


A 2007 Newsweek cover story on climate change denial reported that: "In April 1998 a dozen people from the denial machine — including the Marshall Institute, Fred Singer's group and Exxon — met at the American Petroleum Institute's Washington headquarters. They proposed a $5 million campaign, according to a leaked eight-page memo, to convince the public that the science of global warming is riddled with controversy and uncertainty." The plan was reportedly aimed at "raising questions about and undercutting the 'prevailing scientific wisdom'" on climate change.
All you have is people spinning Ice Core Data that say the earth warms moderately every1500 years, we are not seeing this



posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 10:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kryties

The fact is that the same could be said for the sources provided refuting my claims. That they are politically biased.

[edit on 4/9/2008 by Kryties]
Show that then, show that the vast majority of science is being funded to present a spin on the science to fit the political or economical agenda of those Funding the science. Show that for my sources like I have with Yours. GO On.
Here are a few more threads where i have argued with Good People like yourself who can only find Think Tank Propaganda or BS to support their views. Read these Please.
www.abovetopsecret.com... especially pages 2 and on.
www.abovetopsecret.com... OP using a think tank spin on science to attack GW......and four pages when it was called for what it was........
www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com... This one is just plain funny.....this is what i mean by deniers in my OP.


[edit on 4-9-2008 by atlasastro]



posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 10:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by atlasastro
Dude, read the above. They are getting these ice cores and seeing natural cycles of cooling and warming from atmospheric samples inbeded in the ice over thousands of years. The ICE they are getting this from is dissapearing. How do you compare ICE that traps atmospheric conditions to conditions that will deteriorate the ice to the point where the cycle will not continue, that is what is happening.


Actually, they took data from deep sedimentary deposits from all the oceans as well. This supports the data from the ICE cores. Sediment does not melt
It was actually included in one of the sources I posted, but here it is again...

Cores taken from the seabed of six oceans, including the Atlantic, the Pacific and the Arabian Sea have also revealed the same unmistakable 1500-year cycle.


While you may have a point about the ice samples, the seabed sedimentary samples cannot be refuted.


The heat trends over the last ^) years caused by Man are not moderate changes, as evident in my OP. If this peroid was to be captured in this cysle you love talking about it would be considered an anomaly when compared to previous warming trends.


That doesn't make sense. I am saying that every 1500 years (over the past measurable million years) what we are experiencing now has occurred. We are in the upward bell-curve of the cycle. It will peak out and begin to cool again, just like it has for millions of years.

As I said in my post before, one can turn everything into a politically biased opinion, sometimes disregarding the evidence at hand. If one were to do this then we should all just lay down and stop thinking because we could go in circles forever. I could just as easily find sources claiming your sources are politically biased towards the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

[edit on 4/9/2008 by Kryties]



posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 10:58 AM
link   
reply to post by atlasastro
 


It's very very odd that we have a Govenor... from Alaska... making headline news around the globe and she or the Republicans MAKES NO MENTION of this catastrophy as the thing sits only miles from her state.

The big oil boys have this fake puppet (Palin) firmly in their pockets.



posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 11:07 AM
link   
I think we need to be careful of viewing single events as part of a grander scheme of warming, for example weather events, or this ice shelf break up. However, from the amount of research done, and the findings of the IPCC, then in my humble opinion, it is also dangerous to act as if human activity were not the catalyst for climate change.

If we don't stop the increasing carbon emissions, then there's a real danger that we won't be around for much longer.



posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 11:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kryties
In response to your post pertaining to the IPCC, here is an interesting article...

From www.sciencealert.com.au...

It’s an assertion repeated by politicians and climate campaigners the world over: “2500 scientists of the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) agree that humans are causing a climate crisis.”


Firts of All, the Quotes i took are from an IPCC report, but the Science they USE is a reference and resource for the report and is founded and peer reviewed and accepted. Your opinion piece that you present does not criticise these resources or reference but the peer review process of the Report. This does nothing to discredit the Science of the report, or the quotes i have Used. Once again though you fail to use or present science and in its place we have another lobbyist spinning doubt and innuendo. The Author of your Opinion piece also worked in think tanks and the other author was a computer analyst. No Scientific Rebuttles. None.
How About addressing the evidence i gave you in my earlier post. Emperical Evidence, Observed. Show that the science i have linked in my earlier post is wrong, funded by special interest groups and twisted or spun to promote global warming. So far you have ZIP.




[edit on 4-9-2008 by atlasastro]



posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 11:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kryties
While you may have a point about the ice samples, the seabed sedimentary samples cannot be refuted.


But the problem as I see it is, there's nothing even to back up the existence of these ice cores. They didn't write a scientific paper and submit the results and materials for review, they just wrote a report where they say they took ice cores and found a 1500 year cycle. I would think a lot of scientists would like to see those ice cores for themselves, since nobody else has reported anything like that in independent studies. Now it comes out they're involved in a paid campaign by oil companies to discredit global warming, so can you really expect anyone to believe their claims?



posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 11:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Venit
I think we need to be careful of viewing single events as part of a grander scheme of warming, for example weather events, or this ice shelf break up. However, from the amount of research done, and the findings of the IPCC, then in my humble opinion, it is also dangerous to act as if human activity were not the catalyst for climate change.

If we don't stop the increasing carbon emissions, then there's a real danger that we won't be around for much longer.
This is the Third major shelf break up this year. This year has seen the second year in a row that historical amounts of Summer melts have occurred. These are not isolated events.



posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 11:16 AM
link   
Look, I think I need to make something clear before we continue. I do not support either party in your elections. If anything I would write in Ron Paul if I were American (which by the way I'm not).

I am not siding with any point of political view. I have looked at the DATA and made a logical conclusion based on that DATA. Not the source. I am not saying that I'm right, I could very well be wrong but the long term DATA to me looks compelling enough to continue that train of thought.

Some of you have provided sources and evidence which I think is great. To the others who haven't I would implore you to provide links to your sources and DATA so that we can set about untangling this political mess and start thinking about it from a more correct perspective.



posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 11:20 AM
link   
Its 2 am here in OZ, i need some Global Sleepage, Thanks to those that have replied, i will try an get to replying tomorrow....umm today.....but it is Friday and the weekend. I'll try and get some more on the break ups too. Take it easy All.



posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 11:21 AM
link   
reply to post by atlasastro
 


That's what i'm talking about - a series of events, not a single one.



posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 11:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by atlasastro
Firts of All, the Quotes i took are from an IPCC report, but the Science they USE is a reference and resource for the report and is founded and peer reviewed and accepted.


I have already shown evidence that not all the scientists involved agreed with the evidence and therefore not accepted by the scientific community as a whole.


Your opinion piece that you present does not criticise these resources or reference but the peer review process of the Report. This does nothing to discredit the Science of the report, or the quotes i have Used.


Not on its own, but when viewed in conjunction with all the other evidence I provided it begins to build a nasty picture.


Once again though you fail to use or present science


The intention of that particular article was to discredit the way the report was finalised, once again adding to the WHOLE of the evidence I have presented. You can't just pick tiny snippets of what I have quoted and use that as the basis for your whole argument.


and in its place we have another lobbyist spinning doubt and innuendo. The Author of your Opinion piece also worked in think tanks and the other author was a computer analyst.


Here are 2 of the comments written below the 'Opinion Piece' one of which is a question from a reader asking basically what you have said, and the author following him which explains his position.

From www.sciencealert.com.au...
2nd comment down from top...

written by Mr Gumby , July 10, 2008
Often in these type of opionion pieces, the comments rapidly go down the path of

a. Opinion by someone (typically a climate "skeptic", typically on the UN/IPCC)
b. Comment by a critic of the opinion piece on the motives, qualification and/or ideology of the opinion stater
c. Response from those who agree with the opinion stater that to question the motives, qualification and/or ideology of the opinion stater is nothing but a personal attack, that the motives etc are irrelevant, etc.
d. Depending on the opion piece the critic will often reply that given that the original piece questioned the motives, qualification and/or ideology of the UN/IPCC etc, that such comment is valid.

With that base and to avoid confusion, can I ask if the Tom Harris of this piece the same Tom Harris who is/was executive director of the "Natural Resources Stewardship Project" and a global warming skeptic/denier/contrarian and who was until September 2006, the Ottawa operations director of the High Park Group, a public relations and lobbying firm active in the debate over global warming, whose clients include the Canadian Electricity Association and the Canadian Gas Association, and which has been accused of being an "astroturfing" organisation set up by High Park Group to promote the interests of its clients?


In the very next comment down, Tom Harris answers him:

written by Tom Harris , July 11, 2008
Answers to Mr. Gumby's questions:

1 - I, Tom Harris, was the Executive Director of "Natural Resources Stewardship Project" until the end of February 2008.

2 - I have never been "a global warming skeptic/denier/contrarian". Climate always changes and always will. At times it warms and at times it cools. It never stays the same.

3 - Until September 2006 (from May 2006 to September 2006, a long career indeed), I was the Ottawa operations director of the High Park Group. Despite HPG's other activities, I was never a lobbyist or involved in lobbying. You will have to ask HPG about what their other staff do or did as I can only speak for myself. I do know however that HPG clients include solar and wind companies as well as biofuels, not that it makes any difference to me.

Do you have anything of substance about the piece to ask, or comment, about?

Tom


I think that response speaks for itself.



posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 11:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by atlasastro
Its 2 am here in OZ, i need some Global Sleepage,


SOOK!!!


I'm in Australia too, I'm nowhere near tired yet



posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 11:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by atlasastro

Huge Ice Shelf Breaks Loose in Canada


news.aol.com


Huge Ice Shelf Breaks Loose in Canada
By CHARMAINE NORONHA, AP
posted: 12 HOURS 2 MINUTES AGOcomments: 0filed under: SCIENCE NEWS, WORLD NEWSPrintShareText SizeAAA
TORONTO (Sept. 3) - A chunk of ice shelf nearly the size of Manhattan has broken away from Ellesmere Island in Canada's northern Arctic, another dramatic indication of how warmer temperatures are changing the polar frontier, scientists said Wednesday.
Derek Mueller, an Arctic ice shelf specialist at Trent University in Ontario, told The Associated Press that the 4,500-year-old Markham Ice Shelf separated in early August and the 19-square-mile shelf is now adrift in the Arctic Ocean.
(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
www.reuters.com
www.physorg.com
www.esa.int

Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:
Even The Antarctic Winter Cannot Protect Wilkins Ice Shelf


Ok since we are causing the ice caps to melt, could you tell me why they weren't there millions of years ago?



posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 11:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by greysave
Ok since we are causing the ice caps to melt, could you tell me why they weren't there millions of years ago?


I don't understand your question. Are you directing this at me or someone else?



posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 12:00 PM
link   
The OP. It seems as if he is making the conclusion that humans are doing this. The proof he is citing is the fact that the caps are melting. I just wonder why the caps weren't there before, when humans werent here. Or maybe we were secretly here and melted the caps 15 million years ago.



posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 12:09 PM
link   
reply to post by greysave
 


Hehe gotya, that's the point I am trying to make too, except they seem more interested in debunking the sources and making this political rather than answering that one simple question.



posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 12:16 PM
link   
Exactly, just like they do when it comes to drilling. In stead of using common sense, we have to make that political too.



posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 12:28 PM
link   
Global warming is happening and it is not even close to being man made. Sure we effect the climate but so do animals, trees and the ecosystem. This is a reoccurring cycle of the earth. It has happened before when people were primitive and had no manufacturing companies, it will happen again.

The sun runs on cycles which are completely oblivious to us. We can't say that this is a man made global warming, an earth cycle, a sun cycle, or all at once.
More research needs to be conducted in order for us to really understand what is happening around us.

You guys can sit here and argue all you want but there is not enough evidence for either side to reach a conclusion.




top topics



 
2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join