Ice bridge ruptures in Antarctic

Originally posted by audas

Name me a single book you have read on this issue - name me ONE SINGLE BOOK. I absolutely guarantee you know NOTHING about this issue beyond meaningless clap trap surfed on the internet.

Further I am not the one claiming the the entire global scientific community is wrong - you are - and as such you have made what can only be the most outrageous and extreme claim which in the face of certain and undeniable evidence requires proof.

I have the entire global scientific community behind me.

Book?

I read Peer-Reviewed journals, not Al Gore Books which seem to be the extent of your knowledge on this topic.

Perhaps when you learn what a PEER REVIEWED SCIENTIFIC JOURNAL IS you might understand that they have far more weight, and present factual evidence than any political motivated book...

Anyone can write a book, but it takes knowledge to write peer-reviewed scientific journals...

[SNIP]


Mod Edit: Removed insult

[edit on 15-4-2009 by Gemwolf]

[edit on 15-4-2009 by ElectricUniverse]

[SNIP]

The entire forum is waiting for something which disproves global warming - none of these do they simply point to volcanic activity which I am sure we are all aware of.

Secondly we are all waiting to hear about the literature you have read in order to be so knowledgeable on this issue - a book go on, name a single book you have read on global warming ?

While you are at it, name me a book you have read on anything of any significance.

Mod Edit: Removed quoted insult.

[edit on 15-4-2009 by Gemwolf]

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse

Originally posted by audas

Name me a single book you have read on this issue - name me ONE SINGLE BOOK. I absolutely guarantee you know NOTHING about this issue beyond meaningless clap trap surfed on the internet.

Further I am not the one claiming the the entire global scientific community is wrong - you are - and as such you have made what can only be the most outrageous and extreme claim which in the face of certain and undeniable evidence requires proof.

I have the entire global scientific community behind me.

Book?

I read Peer-Reviewed journals, not Al Gore Books which seem to be the extent of your knowledge on this topic.

Perhaps when you learn what a PEER REVIEWED SCIENTIFIC JOURNAL IS you might understand that they have far more weight, and present factual evidence than any political motivated book...

Any MORON can write a book, but it takes knowledge to write peer-reviewed scientific journals...

[SNIP]

[edit on 15-4-2009 by ElectricUniverse]

Your peer reviewed journals pointed to volcanic activity - a well understood and common every day occurrence, not a single one of these articles even considers the idea that these are to blame for global warming - you have simply applied debased logic to unrelated events and attempted to conflate the two - profoundly illogical, disingenuous and on the whole moronic.

Mod Edit: Removed quoted insult

[edit on 15-4-2009 by Gemwolf]

Originally posted by audas
The entire forum is waiting for something which disproves global warming - none of these do they simply point to volcanic activity which I am sure we are all aware of.

Secondly we are all waiting to hear about the literature you have read in order to be so knowledgeable on this issue - a book go on, name a single book you have read on global warming ?

While you are at it, name me a book you have read on anything of any significance.

WOW....[SNIP], if you don't understand that books don't have to go through the riguruous process that peer-reviewed scientific journals go through, there is nothing to discuss with you about...

Any idiot can look on the internet for any book and post it, it takes real research to find peer-reviewed journals, and research work.

Seriously, you are only embarrassing yourself....

Mod Edit; Removed insult.

[edit on 15-4-2009 by Gemwolf]

reply to post by ElectricUniverse




Further books such as the Weather Makers, The Future Eaters, Revenge of Gaia, Collapse, Times Up etc,etc, are all based upon only the most rigorous of scientific data, journals, peer reviewed, academic and university based - they are the cornerstone of considered scientific opinion.

Again, your assertion that volcanoes cause global warming is so ludicrous that I am unsure as to weather you are even being serious, further your inability to point to a single serious tome on the issue clearly highlights you as a troll.

Mod Edit: Removed large quote.

[edit on 15-4-2009 by Gemwolf]

[SNIP]

And lets see what sort of evidence you give...

You give books, books are not peer-reviewed in case you didn't know, with nothing but the "opinions" of a mammalogist, and paleontologist to discuss Climate change, and you think this disproves anything?....

Keep embarrassing yourself, this is just hilarious.

[edit on 15-4-2009 by ElectricUniverse]

Mod Edit: Snipped off-topic part.

[edit on 15-4-2009 by Gemwolf]

Lets see again what sort of scientists I excerpted from in comparison to your Mammalogist, and paleontologist...

Climate Diagnostics Center,
Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences,
University of Colorado, and
Physical Sciences Division, Earth System Research Laboratory,
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Humm, I wonder who knows better about Climate Change.....

reply to post by audas


If science dealt in absolute facts (and only so) then we wouldn't have had a theory of dark energy before we discovered proof of its existence recently (Yes, I read quite well actually). In fact a huge portion of science deals with phenomenon we have not directly witnessed or observed in any way. It's also a pretty huge part of the scientific process...Black holes, white holes, white dwarfs, magnetars, the list goes on. These are theories and best guesses on what is really occurring and they are all obviously well within the realm of scientific scrutiny. To say otherwise just doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

Also, a scientific consensus hardly acts to portray truth..(this is in response to your statements about global warming in particular). I'm not arguing with you over whether or not global warming is true. If you would have read my posts beforehand you would know my stance by now anyway. Climate change/global warming is a complex global process with a myriad of different factors. We know what the data suggests and what the scientists have been saying. Why you choose not to have a civilized discussion but, rather, insult the intelligence of everyone here (without even reading previous posts it would seem) doesn't really contribute anything to this thread.. Some of us are not complete idiots as you would so forthrightly imply.

Believe it or not, sometimes the scientific consensus is proven to be wrong because what scientists believe is fact is later proven to be false. This is a very general statement, Yes. That's the point.. I'm not exactly splitting atoms here. This is simple historical fact. That is why I made the statement, and that is why my post is important for people to understand. Some of the biggest discoveries in science only occur because people take the chance and decide to challenge the status-quo consensus in search of the truth. My post was not meant to apply to global warming in the direct sense. It was simply meant to act as a more general overview of what science really entails in response to a previous poster's statements about science.

-ChriS

[SNIP]

Kid, I have read plenty of books, but the amount of books you read does not mean you know more than anyone else. More so when books can be written by anyone claiming anything, meanwhile peer-reviewed scientific journals are research conducted with rigurous detail, and even then many scientists' research disagree with others.

A peer-reviewed scientific journal has more weight than any book, or books you can present, unless the book has "peer-reviewed scientific research" as proof, and not just "claims"....


Mod Edit: Removed quote that was off-topic.



[edit on 15-4-2009 by ElectricUniverse]

reply to post by BlasteR


The context of your post was taken to be within the current global warming debate - it came across that you were alluding to the idea that as science comes to different conclusions to those previously assumed it can there fore not be assumed that it is fact - and there fore global warming is by default not fact as science has proven itself wrong - (you too could have read my response). Now this is fairly close on the mark as to what you were "alluding" to - and as such my post stands unchallenged. It is a very disingenuous position to take, or even point to raise, in a forum such as this on a debate such as this where "DOUBT" has been sown as a deliberate seed of the Lavoisier group to challenge the factual consensus for Anthropogenic Global Warming. I find it almost impossible to believe that you were merely raising raising the fallability of science as a non related enlightening factor. My statement that science requires "Falsifiability" renders almost your entire response unrequited.

As for the comments from the rest of the posters on this forum you can not be serious in questioning my condescension - i have repeated my challenge dozens of times for a single piece of evidence from a peer reviewed study or credible or not dis proven study which points to Global Warming being a myth as is bandied about on this site with intellectual impunity.

The position taken by posters in response to the indisputable facts of global warming with absolutely no evidence to the contrary is justifiably moronic.

And finally please provide me with some examples of scientific facts being proven to be erroneous. (And lets not delve into the realms of fantasy here).

Mod Edit: Removed large quote.

[edit on 15-4-2009 by Gemwolf]

That will do, thank you. We debate the POST, not the poster! If you can't discuss the topic without resorting to name-calling then DO NOT POST!

Any further off-topic insults will be removed and penalised.

Terms & Conditions Of Use – Please Review This Link.
General ATS Discussion Etiquette – Please Review This Link.
Civility and Decorum are required – Please Review This Link.


And please quote properly. Nested quotes make posts extremely difficult to read.
Quoting – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 15-4-2009 by Gemwolf]

reply to post by Kryties


Just wondering,whats so wrong with the "middle ground"?!...thats my only question...I mean,why does it have to be "one or the other" and why can it NOT be a combination of nature AND man?!...Seems plausible enough to me that,natural evolution creates change,while,in the same breath,its NOT a strange thought to consider that maybe SOME of the things we've done/created/abused may ALSO have an effect...And i challenge anyone who may not agree,to use the tail pipe of there cars to "freshen up" the air in there homes,just for kicks ;-)...lol If so much of the stuff me use/create/manipulate is dangerous for us to be around,what makes the earth so different!?

I think this WHOLE argument could be/should be layed to rest with a simple shift in naming...So,some places may be warming,some places may be cooling...So that leaves "climate change"...And again,like i said,its obviously been proven the earth goes thru vast changes,but its also quite asinine for anyone to assume 9billion+ beings have NO effect in the state of things to come...

And when it comes down to it,while people choose to uselessly argue over obvious changes,they CHOOSE to take a divisive side in the issue,and actually have NO will in keeping them selves informed on what changes may lay ahead of for existence...Don't get caught with your pants down arguing when you could be busy furthering knowledge and information that can truly be used to some kind of advantage rather than "feeling right"...

Originally posted by audas
.......
Now this is fairly close on the mark as to what you were "alluding" to - and as such my post stands unchallenged. It is a very disingenuous position to take, or even point to raise, in a forum such as this on a debate such as this where "DOUBT" has been sown as a deliberate seed of the Lavoisier group to challenge the factual consensus for Anthropogenic Global Warming. I find it almost impossible to believe that you were merely raising raising the fallability of science as a non related enlightening factor. My statement that science requires "Falsifiability" renders almost your entire response unrequited.

Nonsense, you try to claim that scientific peer-reviewed research, which has nothing to do with "Lavoisier group", does not provide any evidence because you read some books based on the opinions of a Mammalogist/paleontologist who does not study Climate Change itself but just gives opinions, and this is the fact that backs your claims, and your insults?...

I guess if we follow your line of reasoning every scientist who is in favor of Global Warming must be part of the Al Gore's group, and that's that...

I guess my statement must be right since you just gave the "word" of a mammalogist/paleontologist to deny the research of scientists who really have studied Climate Change...

[edit on 15-4-2009 by ElectricUniverse]

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse

Originally posted by audas
.......
Now this is fairly close on the mark as to what you were "alluding" to - and as such my post stands unchallenged. It is a very disingenuous position to take, or even point to raise, in a forum such as this on a debate such as this where "DOUBT" has been sown as a deliberate seed of the Lavoisier group to challenge the factual consensus for Anthropogenic Global Warming. I find it almost impossible to believe that you were merely raising raising the fallability of science as a non related enlightening factor. My statement that science requires "Falsifiability" renders almost your entire response unrequited.

Nonsense, you try to claim that scientific peer-reviewed research, which has nothing to do with "Lavoisier group", does not provide any evidence because you read some books based on the opinions of a Mammalogist/paleontologist who does not study Climate Change itself but just gives opinions, and this is the fact that backs your claims, and your insults?...

I guess if we follow your line of reasoning every scientist who is in favor of Global Warming must be part of the Al Gore's group, and that's that...

I guess my statement must be right since you just gave the "word" of a mammalogist/paleontologist to deny the research of scientists who really have studied Climate Change...

[edit on 15-4-2009 by ElectricUniverse]

Once more - your citations do NOT purport to provide evidence of climate change being anything but Anthropogenic - rather your evidence merely cites discoveries of otherwise unkown volcanic activity. Attempting to conflate the discovery of underwater volcanic vents, or new subterranean activity as disproof of global warming is a total distortion of the facts.

None of your citations have any intention of attempting to show what you claim these articles are claiming, you are completely and utterly distorting the facts.

The work of Jarred Diamond is one of the most universally accepted works on Social Collapse through climate change (yes the well established climate fluctuations which have occurred over the millennia and are accepted and understood as established FACT) - these range from the collapse of Easter island, Greenland to the even Christmas islands. You have clearly done a brief internet search on the back ground of this author and attempted to discredit him as having no relevance as he is not a climatologist. However - his work is intended to show the consequences of even mild climatic changes and highlights the deep understanding we have a collective of historical temperature and weather record, how we have gone about this, the techniques used and the conclusions which may be drawn.

Perhaps you should do yourself a favour - rather - challenge yourself to even read this book, it is clear you have limited grasp of the complexities involved and would rather this forum simply be a slanging arena where inanities are flung with impunity - I have consistently responded to your evidence at every post as being thoroughly insufficient and would again ask you to justify these citations of volcanic discoveries as being somehow related to your ongoing claims that anthropogenic global warming is a myth.

For those who have some interest in reality - the consequences of a melting Antarctic through the FACT of man made global warming are almost impossible to understand.

The removal of ice shelves as consistently noted does not in itself raise sea levels however these shelves hold back HUGE glaciers as the south pole is in fact, unlike the north pole, a land mass. (Continent). Loss of this area could potentially raise sea levels by 30 meters or more.

However the evidence so far points to gravitational wells being created around the melting areas, as such the areas immediately surrounding the Antarctic will not be raised by as much as other areas further away - a strange phenomenon to my mind, and so the consequences are difficult to predict.

The interesting thing to note from some recent forecasts is that the western area of the Antarctic (where much of the activity is happening) could well see a "greening" by the end of the century. WOW

Originally posted by audas
...most intellectually mundane and logically defunct to even consider that underwater venting and volcanic erruptions are the cause of global warming, not a single one of the articles you have cited even attempts to make this claim.

No point getting noughty with ElectricUniverse. Just keep plugging the fact that his 'evidence' is not what he thinks it is.

Same here and here, and here.

Enjoy.

reply to post by Rory27


I don't think the real debate here is whether or not global warming is natural or man-made. We know there are natural causes (causes that have been scientifically proven) and we know there are also man-made causes (at least to some extent). The debate here is about how much man is playing a role. The real answer is nobody really knows. Everything has to be estimated. The data, just like the debate, goes back and forth. We know that man has released immense amounts of CO2 into the environment since the time of the Industrial Revolution. The question is how that small percentage of total CO2 (man-made CO2) exacerbates or contributes to an already naturally-existing climate change process. There are too many varying professional/scientific opinions on how much we are affecting our environment. We are definately not doing the planet any good right now, that has also been well-documented and proven..
All you have to do is look at the coral dying in droves off the coast of Australia (or elsewhere around the globe). In fact, some scientists are saying that all the world's coral reefs could be gone by mid-century due to acidification. This is being caused by, again, the immense amount of CO2 being released into the atmosphere which then becomes absorbed by the world's oceans.

planetsave.com...

The ocean absorbs about 1/4 of the CO2 released into the atmosphere by human activities each year, which tempers the effect of this greenhouse gas on our climate. Carbonic acid is formed when the CO2 is dissolved in the seawater, which lowers the pH (increases the acidity). An acidic ocean reduces the rate at which corals can produce their skeletons and at which other marine organisms can build their shells. And so many other marine organisms are affected by anything that takes a toll on the corals. It’s estimated that the global economy based on coral (and other related marine life) is about $16 trillion per year.

www.solomontimes.com...
www.msnbc.msn.com...

or evenThe Great Pacific Garbage Patch (an immense, floating, tangled, moving island of indestructible human waste somewhere in the pacific that is the size of Texas and is killing birds and other marine life in droves).

You can listen to an NPR interview on the topic of the garbage patch HERE

We KNOW that we have a quickly rising amount of CO2 in our atmosphere. That has also been measured, scientifically proven and well-documented. We just have no way of knowing the extent to which man-made CO2 plays a role in the big picture. We know we have contributed to the problem though and that there are ways currently being developed to STOP contributing to the problem (although by then it may not matter. We'll have to see). We have some huge hurdles ahead of us though..

We have yet to really see anything resembling a true alternative energy movement in this country. For some reason, some folks see alternative energy as a hippyish economy-killer. Even they should know that an alternative energy movement could help to revitalize our economy. Not to mention, it would cease or at least help to cease our dependance on oil and gas. Alot of the technologies are already developed too.. They just aren't being implemented in any meaningful way that would affect our country's consumption of fossil fuels.

-ChriS

reply to post by ElectricUniverse


Stars for your posts at the end of Page 3!

Strange how we are sat on a ball of volcanic rock, that is several thousand of degrees celcius above the boiling point of water, yet our own planet is not considered a source of heat!!!

reply to post by audas

Again I ask for some proof to your ridiculous claims if this as being a myth, Again I ask for your sources as to ANYTHING you have read

I'm trying to put this as politely as possible, whilst at the same time trying not to break the Ts and Cs, but I have to ask: can you read?

He DID post sources. The little blue linky things ARE his sources. Your turn to invalidate them (scientifically, not rhetorically).

[edit on 16-4-2009 by mirageofdeceit]