‘S’cuse me, did you say “imminent”?

The IPCC estimates up to a 23 inch rise in sea levels if the Greenland ice shelf does not slide off into the sea. Mr. Gore’s account of a 20-foot rise Is an estimate of the result if the ice sheet does break away.

These scenarios are not contradictory–one is what happens if the ice shelf fails, the other, if it doesn’t.

“So you KNOW its all man made?”

It doesn’t have to be all man made for man to be able to fix it.

To say otherwise is 100% bullshit. The fact that your argument is 100% bullshit should tell you something.

At least it would if you weren’t blinded by your ideology.

So you KNOW its all man made? Who made the discovery? I didn’t hear the announcement. This should be headline news.

Funny how for eons mother nature made all these huge sweeping climate changes and now she does zilch. Its all man. Bad. Bad Man! Just goes to show you.

“And yet the value of the dollar is still falling in comparison to that of the Euro…”

I missed that line originally.

To fix GW all we have to do is be more energy efficient. That’s it. If you think that will kill the economy, you are truly fucking retarded and shouldn’t be allowed to handle money and especially not discuss economic issues.

And yet the value of the dollar is still falling in comparison to that of the Euro…

You realize whether and climate are not the same thing, right? Cause what you just said suggests otherwise, and that would make you too dumb to debate with.

“And you are dead wrong about Greenland:”

Two points:

1.) You are modifying your claim. You said Greenland was green. Now you are talking about one small section of the island. So, in effect, you are arguing about a tiny local climate and using that as proof in an argument about a global system, and this is intellectually dishonest, at best.

2.) Where the hell did you get that information from? (Never mind, I figured it out. It’s a cut and paste form Wiki, right?) Greenland was never, ‘lush and warm.’ At least not while it had that name. Granted, it was warmer and greener than it is now, but it was still a harsh land. (Think Alaska.)

You need to realize that the medieval warming period was a local event and not indicative of the global situation.

yes, thats why I used them.

“Cause we know what the natural cycles are.

Really, we can’t with great accuracy predict tommorrow’s weather, much less go back centuries and eons and determine causative factors. We may kno what happened – but not so much why.

And you are dead wrong about Greenland:

Icelandic settlers led by Erik the Red (Norwegian exile who settled in Iceland) found the land uninhabited when they arrived c. 982. Around 984 they established the Eastern and Western settlements in deep fjords near the very southwestern tip of the island, where they thrived for the next few centuries, and then disappeared after more than 450 years of habitation.

The fjords of the southern part of the island were lush and had a warmer climate at that time, possibly due to what was called the Medieval Warm Period. These remote communities thrived and lived off farming, hunting and trading with the motherland, and when the Norwegian kings converted their domains to Christianity, a bishop was installed in Greenland as well, subordinate to the archdiocese of Nidaros. The settlements seem to have coexisted relatively peacefully with the Inuit, who had migrated southwards from the Arctic islands of North America around 1200. In 1261, Greenland became part of the Kingdom of Norway.

try again – this time with some knowledge.

yes, thats why I used them.

“Cause we know what the natural cycles are.

Really, we can’t with great accuracy predict tommorrow’s weather, much less go back centuries and eons and determine causative factors. We may kno what happened – but not so much why.

And you are dead wrong about Greenland:

Icelandic settlers led by Erik the Red (Norwegian exile who settled in Iceland) found the land uninhabited when they arrived c. 982. Around 984 they established the Eastern and Western settlements in deep fjords near the very southwestern tip of the island, where they thrived for the next few centuries, and then disappeared after more than 450 years of habitation.

The fjords of the southern part of the island were lush and had a warmer climate at that time, possibly due to what was called the Medieval Warm Period. These remote communities thrived and lived off farming, hunting and trading with the motherland, and when the Norwegian kings converted their domains to Christianity, a bishop was installed in Greenland as well, subordinate to the archdiocese of Nidaros. The settlements seem to have coexisted relatively peacefully with the Inuit, who had migrated southwards from the Arctic islands of North America around 1200. In 1261, Greenland became part of the Kingdom of Norway.

try again – this time with some knowledge.

Really, we can’t with great accuracy predict tommorrow’s weather, much less go back centuries and eons and determine causative factors. And you are dead wrong about Greenland:

Icelandic settlers led by Erik the Red (Norwegian exile who settled in Iceland) found the land uninhabited when they arrived c. 982. Around 984 they established the Eastern and Western settlements in deep fjords near the very southwestern tip of the island, where they thrived for the next few centuries, and then disappeared after more than 450 years of habitation.

The fjords of the southern part of the island were lush and had a warmer climate at that time, possibly due to what was called the Medieval Warm Period. These remote communities thrived and lived off farming, hunting and trading with the motherland, and when the Norwegian kings converted their domains to Christianity, a bishop was installed in Greenland as well, subordinate to the archdiocese of Nidaros. The settlements seem to have coexisted relatively peacefully with the Inuit, who had migrated southwards from the Arctic islands of North America around 1200. In 1261, Greenland became part of the Kingdom of Norway.

try again – this time with some knowledge.

Maybe I’m enraged cause your so fucking stupid.

“greenland was clearly green.”

Greenland was never green. The ice caps are hundreds of thousands of years old. The ice on Greenland is older than the name. So how could those icecaps, which cover 95% of the island, be that old if the place was green just a few centuries ago. Did aliens transport them there? Did God put them there to test our faith?

By the way, Greenland was named Greenland by Erik the Red who wanted to encourage people to migrate there. (He was exiled there at the time.) It was a marketing ploy, nothing more.

“for weather channel”

Would you allow a Creationist to teach your kids biology?

“Gore”

Oh fucking hell…

You realize these people are not on your side.

There is a debate between scientists regarding the details of global warming. This doesn’t mean they don’t think it is happening.

There’s a debate regarding the details of gravity. That doesn’t mean tomorrow you will wake up and float off the planet. (Although I wish you and your flat-Earther brethren would.)

“And so if there are natural cycles, why do we know this is not part of a natural cycle and if so how much.”

Cause we know what the natural cycles are. The things have been taken into account and GW is not explainable by them.

greenland was clearly green.
http://cranach.worldmagblog.com/cranach/archives/2007/02/when_greenland.html

For some reason by a vote of 98-0, the Senate opined Kyoto, “the fix” would ruin the economy.

for weather channel

http://www.nationalledger.com/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi?archive=8&num=11052

Gore

Some of Mr. Gore’s centrist detractors point to a report last month by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a United Nations body that studies global warming. The panel went further than ever before in saying that humans were the main cause of the globe’s warming since 1950, part of Mr. Gore’s message that few scientists dispute. But it also portrayed climate change as a slow-motion process.

It estimated that the world’s seas in this century would rise a maximum of 23 inches — down from earlier estimates. Mr. Gore, citing no particular time frame, envisions rises of up to 20 feet and depicts parts of New York, Florida and other heavily populated areas as sinking beneath the waves, implying, at least visually, that inundation is imminent.

Bjorn Lomborg, a statistician and political scientist in Denmark long skeptical of catastrophic global warming, said in a syndicated article that the panel, unlike Mr. Gore, had refrained from scaremongering. “Climate change is a real and serious problem” that calls for careful analysis and sound policy, Dr. Lomborg said. “The cacophony of screaming,” he added, “does not help.”

So too, a report last June by the National Academies seemed to contradict Mr. Gore’s portrayal of recent temperatures as the highest in the past millennium. Instead, the report said, current highs appeared unrivaled since only 1600, the tail end of a temperature rise known as the medieval warm period.

And so if there are natural cycles, why do we know this is not part of a natural cycle and if so how much.

So fucking what? There are natural cycles to the Earth’s climate. Climatologists understand that and have concluded that what is happening today is not part of that.

Your whole argument boils down to, “I don’t know what the fuck I’m talking about, so neither do the scientists.”

“And are you completely unaware that the Weather Channel has called for decertifying all meteorolgists who don’t tow the Gore line -”

Wow, there’s some loaded language. If you had the facts on your side, you wouldn’t have to result to that shit.

By the way, this is like hiring a biology teacher who believes in Creationism.

“which has already been proven false.”

Prove it, you lying asshole.

“How is it Greenland could be green”

Greenland. Wasn’t. Fucking. Green.

“almosta ll man and we need to wreck the economy for it?”

Wreck the economy? Who said we had to do that? Oil companies?

You keep making these claims that simply aren’t true and ignore other opinions.

“I mean previously mother nature could kick climate butt all over the place – glaciers in Illninois – and not she’s a big wimp.”

The planet will survive. We might not.

And are you completely unaware that the Weather Channel has called for decertifying all meteorolgists who don’t tow the Gore line – which has already been proven false.

And so you acknowledge that this current small 1 degree temperature rise is not all manmade? How much is and isn’t? How is it Greenland could be green and there be working mines in the Alps and glaciers in Illinois -all indicating great great climate change with essentially no input by man- and now this small little spike is what – almosta ll man and we need to wreck the economy for it? You tell me. I mean previously mother nature could kick climate butt all over the place – glaciers in Illninois – and not she’s a big wimp.

Right.

Global Warming doesn’t mean every place on the planet gets warming at the same rate. Some places heat up a lot more, others actually cool.

It also doesn’t mean that in the past some places were not as warm as they are now.

Yes, in the 1500s there was a warm period in Europe, but that was not a global phenomenon.

“I also believe there is no good science proving this warming is permanent or predominantly man made.”

Two points:

1.) That depends on how you define permanent. The planet has been around billions of years and in that scale GW will be a minor bump. This minor bump could destroy our economy, and us. But the planet will go on.

2.) Again, it depends on how you define predominantly, but 1000 scientific papers were studied, and none thought it wasn’t man made to at least a significant degree.

“And I figure if the political left’s science was so good here, they wouldn’t have to be trying to intimidate dissenters into silence with the threat of loss of career.”

Prove this is happening.

“Its all fine and well to come up with alternative explanations for the growing number of contra-indicators of MMGW”

What contra-indicators?

“but those theoretical points do not all prove MMGW.”

I have yet to see a single scientific paper that says anything else.

This is a nearly unprecedented level of consensus among scientists who study in this field. How can you honestly say the science is not in?

There is more uncertainty in the nature of gravity than GW.

“At a minimum we know the earth and other planets have experienced massive climate changes – much greater than the present 1 degree ”

We are experiencing an unprecedented rate of change. This is important.

“So now you are absolutely sure, this one time, that all of those natural factors that were so strong in the past – have just stopped and its all man.”

This is a fucking lie. No one is saying there are no natural factors at work, and to claim otherwise is intellectually dishonest.

“If the science were good, there would be no need for the Stalinist treatment of dissenters.”

The only people who disagree are politicians and industry shrills. And these people have not come up with enough evidence to get one peer reviewed scientific journal printed.

This should tell you something but you are so wrapped up in the Left vs. Right that you can’t look at the science.

I acknowledge there has been minor warming since 1900 or so. I also believe there is no good science proving this warming is permanent or predominantly man made. And I figure if the political left’s science was so good here, they wouldn’t have to be trying to intimidate dissenters into silence with the threat of loss of career. Its all fine and well to come up with alternative explanations for the growing number of contra-indicators of MMGW, but those theoretical points do not all prove MMGW.

At a minimum we know the earth and other planets have experienced massive climate changes – much greater than the present 1 degree – and that man could not have been a factor in those changes. So now you are absolutely sure, this one time, that all of those natural factors that were so strong in the past – have just stopped and its all man. All man. And, gee, all of this coincides with left wing political theory.

If the science were good, there would be no need for the Stalinist treatment of dissenters.

No it wasn’t. The icecaps on Iceland are hundreds of thousands of years old.

“Yet this little minor 1 degree spike”

It is an unprecedented rate of change.

“is reason to junk the world’s economy”

Who says it will junk the world’s economy? All you need to do is be more energy efficient, which would help the economy. The only ones who would suffer are oil and coal companies.

“and panic per Manpigbear AlGore or whoever.”

If you get you climate advice from South Park, you have issues.

Second, Please stop pretending that, in all the times this has been discussed, and indeed in the entire history of climatology and studying the current phenomenon of anthropogenic global climate change, that no scientist ever bothered to demonstrate how [Then ≠ Now]. Its remarkable arrogant of you and indeed of the entire anti-GW crowd to assume that the entire body of scientific research has no response to single, vacuous sound bites. “Betcha can’t explain Greenland! And Mars! And the Broken Hockey Stick! And Newsweek (which is evidently a science journal) predicting an Ice Age in the 70s!” Well, in fact if you could have been bothered to check, to do a single google search (or rather an additional one after typing “Global Warming Fraud Lies Religion Stupid Gay” and hitting I Feel Lucky), you’d indeed find explanations for all these abberations, but then that wuold require intellectual honesty on your part, so I can easily see from where the problem comes.

Third, I’m very curious, since economics seems to be a running theme with you as justification why we shouldnt stop polluting, be healthy, etc., can you actually point to a country that has been economically crippled by environmental regulations? A single person driven to bankrupcy by haviong to pay just that much more in taxes? I’m honestly curious since, while I have endless references to debunk the various other semi-scientific “debunkings” of global warming, I’ve never had to refute an economic one full bore and am wondering what it would require. Seeing what proof, if any, you can offer would go some way to helping me with this, and I thank you in advance.