NASA Study Indicates Antarctica is Gaining More Ice Than It's Losing - (1 Viewer)

[AccessBlaster]

He has been proven willing to engage in scientific fraud.

The good news is it only took 6 years, 10 months, and 9 days for Greg to admit some scientists commit fraud. Albeit not a climate scientist but it is progress.

 

[Galaxiom]

The good news is it only took 6 years, 10 months, and 9 days for Greg to admit some scientists commit fraud. Albeit not a climate scientist but it is progress.

False. I have pointed out fraud by other climate change denial scientists in this thread in the past. I also noted that one of them had also accepted money from the tobacco industry to present a case that tobacco did not cause cancer.

Your implication that climate change scientist commit fraud to gain research grants is ridiculous while you ignore the fact that the trillion dollar fossil fuel industry has a very high profit motivation to distribute misinformation and continue polluting.

 

[Uncle Gizmo]

There's not enough CO2

 

[Uncle Gizmo]

Joe got it sussed!

- YouTube

Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.

youtube.com

 

[Pat Hartman]

@Galaxiom Do you breathe? How about your dog? Does he breathe? How about your spouse and children? How many breaths per hour should they be limited to? China had too much population growth so that spawned the one child policy which dramatically increased abortion in china because if they could have only one child, most couples wanted a male so they aborted females. That left China with a different problem. Lots of men with no opportunities for marriage. That was a bit of diversion but it follows the same thought.

Think about the consequences of what you see as a "solution". Make sure you understand the actual problem. Especially when you are proposing Draconian "solutions", you had better be certain you're right and the science doesn't support that. This week the temperature is rising. Last week it was dropping which was why we had to change the "problem" to "Climate Change". Because rising/falling - doesn't matter. It's an existential threat.

The climate has been changing since the world was formed and it will continue as long as the planet survives, with us or without us. Maybe we're not the final solution. Maybe we need to die off so a better species can rise up. Maybe we are intelligent enough to adapt. But it is pure hubris to think that we can change the climate, especially when only the US is obligated to follow the "rules". Strangely enough, the US has taken the pollution problem to heart and despite dropping out of the Paris accord, our CO2 emissions are gradually dropping while those of China and India are rising more than enough to wipe out any gains we make.

Humans are the proximate cause of pollution. We have to be more conscious of the waste we produce and what happens to it. Do you buy bottled water by the case? Do you buy a new iPhone every time a new model comes out? Do you have an electric car? Do you have any idea what happens to the waste from electronics or the waste from batteries? We put them in the garbage or if we're good citizens, we hold them until our town has a special collection and we bring all our outdated computers and phones and TVs, and paint and batteries, etc to be "recycled".

You might want to look into the myth that is recycling. We used to ship a lot of the stuff to China because they could take it apart and recycle some of the individual components but China wised up. The cost to them in local pollution and health problems caused by handling the noxious components caused them to rethink the policy and now they are no longer accepting any but the top tier of junk. The rest, we are left to deal with and we are not doing a good job of it. Remember when the NY metro area used to load its garbage on barges and take it out and dump it in the Atlantic a few miles off shore. Where do they ship it now? Perhaps recycling is a better problem to solve than the amount of CO2 being released into the atmosphere. We do have to breathe after all and I don't think you want the government trying to control that. Besides, if you plant more trees in your yard, they will suck up your personal CO2 so you won't feel like a polluter every time you exhale. It is the moral thing to do

 

[Uncle Gizmo]

I won't hold my breath.. ..

 

[Pat Hartman]

I planted a tree in my yard. Now, the pressure is off. I can now exhale without worrying about global warming. I've taken care of my carbon offset I am a moral person.

 

[NauticalGent]

I live in the middle of the woods...enough trees to pick up all y'alls slack

 

[The_Doc_Man]

We have four fairly large trees in our yard, mostly oak varietals 30-40 feet tall and very bushy. Should be pretty good for processing atmospheric CO2. I'm doing MY best to not put out so much CO2, but I can't do anything about the methane here in south Louisiana. Red beans and rice is too deeply ingrained in our cultural diets.

 

[Galaxiom]

I won't hold my breath.. ..

I'm going out to the garage to get the camping Mallet, the nice big one for hammering in tent pegs. I'll write "Greg" on it with an indelible marker. I will keep it on my desk next to the keyboard. Next time I find myself temped to answer one of your comments, I'm going to pick it up and beat myself about the head with it!

I relish the thought.

 

[Galaxiom]

This week the temperature is rising. Last week it was dropping which was why we had to change the "problem" to "Climate Change".

I'm not going to bother arguing with someone obviously so ill-informed that they don't even understand the difference between climate and weather.

 

[Uncle Gizmo]

I'm not going to bother arguing with someone obviously so ill-informed that they don't even understand the difference between climate and weather.

Do you want to borrow my mallet Pat?

 

[Grumm]

I planted a tree in my yard. Now, the pressure is off. I can now exhale without worrying about global warming. I've taken care of my carbon offset I am a moral person.

In that case, we planten with my parents a few 20k oak trees. Safe to say we have done our part of the job i guess

This all is the same as 'eh look at me driving my EV all year long. I don't produce CO2'... So can we all assume that every single EV that is beeing made does not require rare metals, forced labor, big super factories all using clean energy without producing CO2 ?
(I also count any tool, bolt, or nail used in making the machines, or resources to actually make the factory.)

 

[Pat Hartman]

I'm not sure you saw the tongue in my cheek EV's are so bad for the planet it is scary. Just because they don't blow noxious fumes as you drive through the city doesn't mean they're not burning coal or running on batteries that are not made from minerals mined by slaves in China or Africa.

 

[Pat Hartman]

the difference between climate and weather.

And I thought I was talking about climate and pollution. Since the "science" says climate is permanently altered ONLY by the pollution made by man. Sun cycles and other natural causes such as volcanic eruptions have nothing to do with anything. I'm pretty sure we will discover that there is a time machine somewhere and for every major climate cycle change, we will find humans traveled back in time to cause it There were no asteroid strikes such as the one they now think caused the extinction of the dinosaurs. Have you noticed that "science" changes over time? We've figured out that the Earth isn't flat and that the Sun doesn't revolve around us. WE are not the center of the universe. Bummer man.

If humankind is to survive, we need to evolve. We need to stop living on barrier islands where our buildings get wiped out with great regularity. If we stopped "managing" the Mississippi, maybe we wouldn't lose so much of Louisiana every year. We might lose New Orleans but maybe we shouldn't build cities below sea level.

Are you saying that cleaning up pollution won't make the Earth a better place? When are you going to start regulating your breathing to stop your contribution to the pollution?

Humans are not the proximate cause of climate change. We make our contribution in our pollution but none of the draconian "solutions" actually stop climate change. They mitigate our contribution to it but at a cost. The US has come a long way in the past 100 years in our drive to clean up the environment. The Monongahela hasn't caught fire in a long time. You can swim in the Hudson. NY isn't dumping their solid waste off of barges towed out a few miles into the Atlantic. Can't say were it is going now which is a little worrisome. The sky over LA isn't perpetually a sickly green. However, you can't breathe in Beijing but China doesn't count. They can build a new coal plant every week but we can't criticize them And the intelligentsia get to fly private because they're special because they have to get to each conference where they lecture us on how we're wrecking the planet. And I'm pretty sure their 30,000' cottages will be warm and cosy this winter. But my granddaughter is looking at $800 per month to heat her tiny condo with electricity. Can't use oil now can we

 

[The_Doc_Man]

If we stopped "managing" the Mississippi, maybe we wouldn't lose so much of Louisiana every year. We might lose New Orleans but maybe we shouldn't build cities below sea level.

Before we get so Draconian, let's also recognize that according to the climate gloom and doom cloud, what WAS sea level a few years ago will be a lot higher very soon. So shall we name a few OTHER cites that are (completely or in part) only slightly above sea level now, but won't be if the gloom and doom crowd actually knows something? Cities that are on the water's edge - like Washington DC or New York City or Tampa ... and we can't forget our friends from California. How many coastal cites have at least parts of said cites REALLY close to sea level? Yes, we might lose those places. And if we do, we lose oceanic shipping ports with all the economic and starvation disruptions that would be caused by shipping coming to a halt. Look at what COVID issues did to shipping by simply reducing the workforce, causing backlogs off Los Angeles as many dozens of cargo ships had to wait in line. How bad do you think it would get if suddenly there WERE no ports at all where we used to have them because the shipping yards were all flooded and unusable?

 

[Pat Hartman]

Sorry Doc I only mention your favorite city because all the work done by the army corps of engineers to prevent flooding upstream has reduced the sediment that flows downstream and settles in the delta so the delta is losing acres of area every year. I'm also not sure that the work has been entirely successful in preventing flooding. A dam would have been better but we can't build dams any more. The delta loss hasn't been totally been caused by the rise of the oceans. I think New Orleans was lost to Katrina and is not the city it once was so sadly, the writing is on the wall. 9,000 years ago, the delta as we know it did not exist at all Deltas come and go naturally over time. Once the delta is gone, New Orleans has no protection from the Gulf. I was seeing some predictions of 30 years left.

I'm pretty sure that the humans living in Europe didn't rail against climate change as the ice age enveloped their world. They adapted. They picked up and moved south.

 

[AccessBlaster]

I suppose the rise in sea level was the result of early man farting and building campfires.

Some 200 million years ago, the area was a vast sea, which is why you can find seashells all over the Sonoran Desert, Utah and other places in the West. American Indians also traded for seashells from coastal tribes so they could turn the shells into jewelry. These are mostly found in prehistoric ruins.

 

[ColinEssex]

I suppose the rise in sea level was the result of early man farting and building campfires.

No, it's all the hot air on these forums.
Col

 

[The_Doc_Man]

No, it's all the hot air on these forums.
Col

You know, Col, there are times when you are just about spot on target.