Wow, if that is even TRUE it is blatant propaganda!

What a bunch of crap.
And I agree Zindo, I would like to see those photos also. They actually have no way of knowing that, btw.
No telling how much of the excess water would be taken in by caves and what not. I mean sure, if the caps completely melted, the sea levels would rise, but they can't make accurate predictions of sea level increases unless they have seen it, step-by-step, before.

PS. Oops. Sorry mods. I didn't realize I had cursed. I edited it myself.

[edit on 1-1-2009 by Jay-in-AR]

Originally posted by Jay-in-AR
Wow, if that is even TRUE it is blatant propaganda!

What a bunch of crap.
And I agree Zindo, I would like to see those photos also. They actually have no way of knowing that, btw.
No telling how much of the excess water would be taken in by caves and what not. I mean sure, if the caps completely melted, the sea levels would rise, but they can't make accurate predictions of sea level increases unless they have seen it, step-by-step, before.

PS. Oops. Sorry mods. I didn't realize I had cursed. I edited it myself.

[edit on 1-1-2009 by Jay-in-AR]

How can something be TRUE and yet blatant propoganda?

No it was the North Pole, the South Pole sits on Land and is a Continent and is a wall of ice, that melts and you'll know about it.

Try researching this and not following the Republican Neo Con line. Neo Con is dead. And if you don't believe that, watch China, and when they're ready, India.

Originally posted by Shere Khaan



I wonder where the global warming theorists go from here?

I did not read every post in this thread.
But as to where people go from here, I would say they focus on the unusually rapid changing of the levels of sea ice. Or if sea was not at its lowest level, then the last few months might have pushed the world into the over do ice age.

Here's what I think to it:

The current Global Warming Alarmists (GWA) will say that they were right and that they measures to cut CO2 worked, when in 10 years time things are colder than now, and ice is thicker than now.

Either way, they can't lose the argument if people are suckered into doing (expensive) things to cut CO2.

BTW: all cars are required to have catalytic converters to take out bad stuff from the exhaust. By removing the catalyzer, you CUT the amount of CO2 produced.

Here's something I'd like to see the GWA answer:

If the CURRENT level of CO2 in the atmosphere is causing warming, and we were to simply cut CO2 output, what are you going to do about the CO2 ALREADY in the atmosphere?? You see, new CO2 is merely adding to the problem, whilst it is the EXISTING CO2 that is actually causing the warming.

So... what do you propose we do with the CO2 already in the atmosphere???

* Goes to light log fire *

[edit on 1-1-2009 by mirageofdeceit]

Now we must join forces to battle.. GLOBAL COOLING! OH MY GOD

Ok, before your continue with your AGW discussions, take a look at this paragraph from the bottom of the article.

Why were predictions so wrong? Researchers had expected the newer sea ice, which is thinner, to be less resilient and melt easier. Instead, the thinner ice had less snow cover to insulate it from the bitterly cold air, and therefore grew much faster than expected, according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center.

As you see, there is no snow at all, the cold temperature in winter did its job of creating ice from water, just as your refrigerators do!

Less snow in winter is a clear indication of the climate change occuring, and this ice will melt away easily in no time.

Now any obligations regarding this?

Originally posted by mirageofdeceit
Here's what I think to it:


BTW: all cars are required to have catalytic converters to take out bad stuff from the exhaust. By removing the catalyzer, you CUT the amount of CO2 produced.

Reduced, not eliminated. And since then the number of cars on the road have multiplied astronomically. We just traded one problem for another.

AND lets not forget the unregulated industry, all the weed eaters, mowers, leaf blowers, and snow blowers,tractors and other 2 cycle engines with little environmental control that spew into the environment so people can have a golf course for a yard. Next time you drive around, notice the impossible amount of lawn that has to be maintained.

Here's something I'd like to see the GWA answer:

If the CURRENT level of CO2 in the atmosphere is causing warming, and we were to simply cut CO2 output, what are you going to do about the CO2 ALREADY in the atmosphere?? You see, new CO2 is merely adding to the problem, whilst it is the EXISTING CO2 that is actually causing the warming.

So... what do you propose we do with the CO2 already in the atmosphere???

* Goes to light log fire *

Simply plant trees. Trees are very effective at removing CO2. So replacing the many trees that have been razed actually would be pretty beneficial.
The Taiga Forest near the arctic line produces a third of the world oxygen. So the trees do a pretty good job of filtering CO2 and producing oxygen.

I am glad you find it all so funny since it is a pretty obvious question that you should already know the answer too. But ignorance is funny isn't it?

[edit on 1-1-2009 by mirageofdeceit]

I was in a debate when I got into bed before I got a response, but with ice packs from the south pole (thank Gawd it's not melted yet or you lunatics that reckon it's all cool wouldn't have any proof against you) but this increase in warmth is by massive the biggest in 3000 years, no sun cycles cannot be accounted for there.

This is not about evidence, it is about the Neo Cons in the US, the rest of the world understands, we've pissed up our Co2 in the atmosphere and need to wait 150-300 years for that to come out. We have actually put off an ice age which is pretty good, but we need to control the warmth. I am not happy with what we are doing, but we are not going to solve things by stopping global warming. We are in a position where what we do will be environmentally felt and we have to live with it, or it will live without us.

We have an impact on the environment now, and need to learn how to take total control.

Originally posted by redled
So 1979 was a high mark for ice? On what day? This summer had the North Pole with no ice for the first time ever. I haven't read your article, but assume no mention was made of that. Siberia got to -56oC in Irkutsk a couple of years ago, but not this. It depends on amongst other things how the continental winds blow. By the way, does your article tell us how thick the ice was?

To be fair, it is not "my" article; I make no claim in writing it I merely linked it as the findings in it are interesting. And why bother even posting and asking what the article contains in it when you could simply read it your self?

Anyhoo, I personally have no illusions about climate change, it is written into the history of this planet. I do however take issue with Gore and carbon based global warning when they can't even predict the weather 3 months ahead. Man can definitely change the climate though, just look at the deserts we have created as an example and how the climate there has changed.

This obsession with carbon has to end, time and again man has focused on fixing one problem to make 10 others worse. We need to look at the whole picture and not just the politically correct parts.

Originally posted by Shere Khaan

Originally posted by redled
So 1979 was a high mark for ice? On what day? This summer had the North Pole with no ice for the first time ever. I haven't read your article, but assume no mention was made of that. Siberia got to -56oC in Irkutsk a couple of years ago, but not this. It depends on amongst other things how the continental winds blow. By the way, does your article tell us how thick the ice was?

To be fair, it is not "my" article; I make no claim in writing it I merely linked it as the findings in it are interesting. And why bother even posting and asking what the article contains in it when you could simply read it your self?

Because I can read trash a mile off. There may be subjectivity in that....

Anyhoo, I personally have no illusions about climate change, it is written into the history of this planet. I do however take issue with Gore and carbon based global warning

Yup, self publicist, but.......

when they can't even predict the weather 3 months ahead.

No, you're going wrong there, you're mistaking averages which are still notoriously difficult to predict with the chaos of prediction. It falls apart after a few days and needs statistical models to have any hope on the future anf they are still too unstable, but yup heat talks and it's getting hotter.

Man can definitely change the climate though, just look at the deserts we have created as an example and how the climate there has changed.

Thank goodness none of the new deserts are in the western world.

This obsession with carbon has to end, time and again man has focused on fixing one problem to make 10 others worse. We need to look at the whole picture and not just the politically correct parts.

Methane is worse, but we all need a single line to aim for. Less Carbon!!!! The CFC's we put in the atmosphere are still there...... But that is no excuse for our current behaviour.

I'm not all that good with this topic. It needs too much science, and I dont know anything.

But isn't this a bad thing if we're supposedly due for another ice age?