BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'-banned

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'-banned
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 29 Jan 07 - 11:43 PM

Oh crap, you mean the "i" is long? I was picturing a lake full of Bombay Saphire. Now I am sad.

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'-banned
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 Jan 07 - 11:21 PM

Uh-huh. Tell me this...if people can invent grotesque words like "Gi-normous" then how come no one says "E-gantic"?

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'-banned
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 29 Jan 07 - 10:14 PM

"...even if in a worse case scenario ALL of Greenalnd melts, MUCH of that fresh water will stay put in some GI-NORmous "Great Lakes"."


Wrong, wrong, wrong. Go do a bit of reading on isostasy and post-glacial rebound. The lithosphere is quite elastic. If all of the ice melts, first, there will be a giant depression into which the sea will flow, then Greenland will not only pop back up, it will overshoot and develop a nice hump. Ain't gonna be no ginormous lakes there.

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'-banned
From: Bill D
Date: 29 Jan 07 - 08:24 PM

282RA...yes, it 'might' be that bad. It is NOT clear yet. *IF* islands & low areas start getting submerged, serious steps will have to be taken, and population reduction is one of the major ones. (we should have been doing it for years, already). Areas like Bangladesh simply can't deal with much sea-level rise, and India & Pakistan won't be in the mood to help...

On the other hand, Canada & Russia might gradually get warm enough to support more. If it gets bad, it WILL be at a rate higher that we'd like to deal with.....the lower we can get the population first, the better off we'll be.

I'm just speculating...there are people who do this all day long, and have better ideas of the details.

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'-banned
From: pdq
Date: 29 Jan 07 - 08:09 PM

Warm beer. How British.

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'-banned
From: John Hardly
Date: 29 Jan 07 - 08:06 PM

"Damn shame they can't turn the ocean into beer first, then, if it's as bad as that."

Jump in the water
Stay tight all the time

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'-banned
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 Jan 07 - 08:03 PM

You're right, pdq. In that case it should rightly be called "oceanic warming" in regards to those areas you mention. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'-banned
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 Jan 07 - 07:36 PM

Damn shame they can't turn the ocean into beer first, then, if it's as bad as that. Shane would die happy.

I doubt that Japan or Hawaii or most other islands would be "submerged". They've got plenty of high mountains. But a lot of their valuable shorefront and lowlying areas would be inundated. The most vulnerable places, all things considered, are Bangladesh and Holland. In Bangladesh it would be a catastrophe almost beyond imagination. There is a huge population there, and they're living on a floodplain.

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'-banned
From: pdq
Date: 29 Jan 07 - 07:35 PM

"The Great Barrier Reef will become 'functionally extinct' within decades at the current rate of global warming..."

It has been stated over and over again, on this forum and others, that the Pacific Ring of Fire is in a period of unusually high activity. Underground volcanoes are warming the Pacific Ocean, threatening the health of The Great Barrier Reef as well as softening the ice at the edges of Antarctica. It is not just bad science to call this Global Warming, it is dishonest.

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'-banned
From: 282RA
Date: 29 Jan 07 - 07:02 PM

You're talking about a New Orleans type mass exodus and relocation occurring on every coastline on the planet. Hundreds of millions of people fleeing. You're talking islands as Japan, Taiwan, the Philippines, England, Iceland, Hawaii etc. quite possibly getting submerged or made much smaller. Whose going to take in the refugees when every country already has to find room for their own displaced coastline dwellers?

Hate to say it but even cutting all greenhouse gas emissions at this moment will not stop the warming trend. I don't think there is anything anyone can do. We can only hope that we are not the sole cause of it and pray it might just turn around on its own but that could take centuries and we don't have centuries. What will have to happen is that there must be a mass die-off of life, including human (especially human), so that what land areas are still above the water won't be unbearably overcrowded and there's still room for any wildlife that survives.

I just hope I'm dead by the time things get to that point because it's not all that far into the future. All the sudden immortality doesn't look like such a desirable thing.

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'-banned
From: John Hardly
Date: 29 Jan 07 - 06:58 PM

"Am I the only one who has no idea why this individual is continuing to argue only to agree and then continue to argue?"

Can you not address me directly or are you looking for a cheerleader instead of a discussion? Or is the "individual" to whom you refer not me?

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'-banned
From: Naemanson
Date: 29 Jan 07 - 06:50 PM

I just want someone to say WHY they disagree with the notion that humans MIGHT be part of the cause. I know WHY people are worried that global warming is caused by humans. I want to know why the rest of you do not believe it to be a cause of concern. I don't want to see a political discussion not do I want to hear any fingerpointing. I just want a simple statement.

Here, I'll help you. I believe global warming is at least partially caused by humans and ignoring it will cause disaster. I believe making changes now will save lives and improve conditions for our children's children. The changes I advocate include reduction of greenhouse emissions and preparing for the increased temperatures and the rise of the sea levels.

There. That's my statement. What is yours?

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'-banned
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 Jan 07 - 06:44 PM

Can't argue with that.

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'-banned
From: 282RA
Date: 29 Jan 07 - 06:43 PM

Am I the only one who has no idea why this individual is continuing to argue only to agree and then continue to argue?

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'-banned
From: John Hardly
Date: 29 Jan 07 - 06:39 PM

Nothing. Nothing at all. And we should be just as adamant about doing it ourselves as we are angry at the Chinas, Indias and others who don't see it that way.

But if it is our goal to stimulate interest in reducing CO2 emissions, it is a too-easy trap to fall into to think that disinformation, disseminated in the name of doing good, is our friend. It is not.

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'-banned
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 Jan 07 - 06:35 PM

Healthy skepticism is a useful thing, John. No doubt. I often go against the general flow myself on any number of things. Like who planned the destruction of the WTC and carried it out, for example... ;-)

Matter of fact, there's something quite seductive about questioning a common popular viewpoint. It's very appealing to think that one sees through something that almost everyone else has fallen for. Is it not?

That too can be a pitfall.

What do we have to lose by reducing CO2 emissions? (in the long run, I mean)

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'-banned
From: John Hardly
Date: 29 Jan 07 - 06:28 PM

I would agree with you LH if I hadn't changed my mind so much over the past few years. I just don't think there's anything wrong with healthy skepticism. In fact, it is often the thing that keeps those prone to irrational extremes from spoiling (by poor framing, careless logic, or irrational fear) the value of a good point.

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'-banned
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 Jan 07 - 06:21 PM

With this, as with any other contentious matter, most people will cling tenaciously to the first position they took on it...almost till Hell freezes over. Why? Well, because their ego has already invested a good deal in defending that first position, and it is NOT about to recant now! Nosiree. It's the "Vietnam" syndrome. ;-) "We can't withdraw now, because that would mean that all those lives were 'lost in vain'..." LOL! What vanity. Such lives are pretty well always lost in vain.

The mountain of evidence, however, now confronting those who scoff at the notion that there is global warming occurring and that humans are significantly contributing to it, is managing to cause many of even the most stubbornly recalcitrant egos to amend their past position...or just become a little bit less vociferous about defending it. Their numbers are steadily dwindling.

The same is true of those who assert that invading Iraq was a really terrifically excellent and necessary thing to do.

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'-banned
From: John Hardly
Date: 29 Jan 07 - 06:18 PM

My comments on the Humboldt glacier were to point out that the ice sheet is not of even thickness. That if it averages 5000 ft thick, but also has areas that are a mere 200 feet thick, that means all the more ice in other areas.

And if I had never mentioned the Humboldt glacier, but had merely said "y'know, 5000 being an average, that means there is still an even greater elevation of pure ice -- 5000 feet high and twice the size of Texas --- I would have been saying the same thing.

If you want to subtract the areas of Greenland that are, as you say, 1000 ft below sea level, that's fine, It still means the elevations of pure ice are at 4000 feet and twice the size of Texas.

But if I grant you that some of Greenland is 1000 ft below sea level, let's not forget that a substantial amount of it is at Rocky Mountain elevations. Probably more than is below sea level.

And that below sea level thing? ...that, and the movement of ice is exactly why many say (and probably quite correctly so) that even if in a worse case scenario ALL of Greenalnd melts, MUCH of that fresh water will stay put in some GI-NORmous "Great Lakes".

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'-banned
From: 282RA
Date: 29 Jan 07 - 05:47 PM

I should correct myself when I said the central portion of Greenland is depressed by ice by 1000 feet. I should have completed the sentence by saying 1000 feet below sea level.

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'-banned
From: Bunnahabhain
Date: 29 Jan 07 - 05:40 PM

You are aware that large parts of the land masses of Greenland and Antarctica are well below sea level?

The ice is so heavy the ground has been depressed by it.

The highest Point of the Greenland Ice cap is just over 3200m (10,500ft) above sea level.

The Humboldt glacier. You probably can't find a length for it, as nobody is quite sure how long it it. It's an an area where the Ice cap descends to the sea, and thins as it does so. How long it is depends on where you draw the line of where the ice cap ends and the glacier begins. 500m thick, 1000m, 1500m? They'll all give

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'-banned
From: TIA
Date: 29 Jan 07 - 05:38 PM

This should help as well. These are the guys who study the Geenland ice balance. You can see the actual thickness profiling data.

http://cresis.ku.edu/research/data/

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'-banned
From: katlaughing
Date: 29 Jan 07 - 05:32 PM

Look out Australia:

January 30, 2007
Page 1 of 2 | Single page

The Great Barrier Reef will become "functionally extinct" within decades at the current rate of global warming, while wilder weather is set to affect property values and drive up insurance bills in many Australian coastal communities.

A confidential draft of a major international report, obtained by The Age, shows that without massive greenhouse gas emission cuts to slow global warming, damage to coastal areas, key ecosystems and the farming sector is likely to cost Australia's economy billions of dollars.

On Saturday, The Age reported that the world's authoritative body on global warming, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), was preparing to strengthen its findings in a scientific assessment being released in Paris this week.

In coming months, the panel will also release two more reports, summarising key research on global climate impacts and solutions to climate change. CONTINUED HERE.

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'-banned
From: 282RA
Date: 29 Jan 07 - 05:29 PM

I'm also puzzled by your repeated assertion that the Humboldt glacier is a "large part" of the Greenland ice sheet. It is, in fact, a miniscule portion of it. From Britannica online:

largest known glacier in the world, northwestern Greenland, 210 miles (340 km) north-northeast of Dundas. It rises to a height of 328 feet (100 m) and discharges into the Kane Basin along a 60-mile (100-km) front. It was discovered in 1853 by an American expedition headed by Elisha Kent Kane.

http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9041490/Humboldt-Glacier

So it's 210 miles from Dundas. Funny that it could be a large part of the ice sheet and yet be so far from this town. It discharges along a 60-mile front. Well, Greenland has over 24,000 miles in of coastline! From a Wikipedia article:

The total area of Greenland measures 2,166,086 km² (836,109 square miles), of which the Greenland ice sheet covers 1,755,637 km² (677,676 square miles) (81%). The coastline of Greenland is 39,330 km (24,430 miles) long, about the same length as the Earth's circumference at the Equator.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenland

Now, before you go off trying to prove that the scientists who have been studying Greenland and the ice sheet firsthand are wrong and you are right, consider this map of the Humboldt Glacier:

Scroll down a little

As you can see, it is really nowhere near the size of Greenland's total ice sheet. It's a huge glacier to be sure but it is only a very small portion of the an island so prodigiously huge that it boggles the mind.

And, yes, with that kind of land area being 80% or more covered with ice, you could easily have 5000 feet of ice average--easy. Moreover, the article also states the weight of the ice has depressed Greenland in the central part by a good 1000 feet.

It looks like you read things into articles that are not really there. Whether it's because global warming frightens you (it very definitely should) or because you have the anti-intellectual's innate distrust of scientists or a little of both, I don't know. But you seem to argue in favor of a view that is largely manufactured via misinterpretation.

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'-banned
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 29 Jan 07 - 05:19 PM

Putting politics aside, which I realize is a difficult task for SOME people, what do we have to lose by paying attention to global warming?

I saw the film, and I had questions.   First of all, there have been a number of "ice ages" in the history of this planet, and there will be more before the lights are shut off.   

Most scientists seem to agree that humans are contributing to global warming, but there is difference as to what extent.

The question is - what do we have to lose by trying to correct the balance?   By controlling emissions the worse that can happen is nothing. The air will be easier to breathe, cars will be cheaper to operatre, and live goes on.   Failure to act can result in deeper problems.

If you have a festering boil on your neck, you can say it is nothing and leave it alone and hope it doesn't spread or turn into something else. Or you can stop whining and worrying and do something about it.

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'-banned
From: 282RA
Date: 29 Jan 07 - 04:57 PM

Maybe this will help

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'-banned
From: John Hardly
Date: 29 Jan 07 - 03:09 PM

It's shrinking, it's growing, it's shrinking, it's growing

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'-banned
From: John Hardly
Date: 29 Jan 07 - 02:59 PM

Okay.

When we last talked I was puzzled by the notion of how a 200-300 ft thick slab of ice, covering an area 1/129th the size of the planet's oceans, could possibly raise the sea level 22-27 feet. The numbers were all there and one could easily do the math.

So I dug further. I figured there had to be something more to it if a guitar-playing potter with a DSL connection could confound all of modern science (or at least that half of modern science bought and paid for by the fear industry and Greenpeace .....JUST KIDDING!!!!!!).

Anyway, I found that, though the Humboldt Glacier is only about 200 ft thick on average, Encyclopedia Britannica online says that the Greenland ice sheet (of which the Humboldt Glacier is a large part) is actually said to be 5000 ft thick……. AVERAGE!!!

Well, when I read that I sure felt shot down, I'll tell you. I stopped my Nobel Prize-winning research paper right then and there (the paper wherein I bring the world of science to its knees, begging me for but a taste of my "mythology"), sat down and played a couple of AABB's of "Nail That Catfish To A Tree" (a fiddle tune I've been learning to play fingerstyle. MAN is that a fingerbuster!).

And then it hit me.

Not the catfish. The catfish is just part of that fiddle tune and more or less fictional. What hit me was..........5000 feet .........AVERAGE?!!!!!

?

So I got to thinking about the implications of a 5000ft AVERAGE thickness to this ice sheet. And it dawned on me that that would imply that – not just the peaks, but the entire elevation of Greenland would be nearly as high as the highest peaks of the Appalachian Mountain range. Said another way – if the Greenland ice sheet AVERAGES 5000 feet thick, that means that if you could fit all that ice neatly into your freezer, your icecube tray would have to be 5000 ft tall (a shade less than a mile high – almost as high as anything in the Appalachian range) and three times the size of the State of Texas.

That is, pardon me, a shitload of ice.

And then the implications further grabbed me. The Humboldt Glacier (remember it? …the biggest glacier in the Northern Hemisphere) is part of that ice sheet and at 100KM wide (I've searched high and low for length and cannot find it) is only 200-300 feet think. That is a SERIOUS chunk out of a 5000 foot AVERAGE. I mean, it's like that damn F on the test you were too lazy to study for. Just TRY to get that grade back up to an A average once you've failed one stupid test. A 300 ft thick swath taken out of the 5000 ft average thickness means that there has to be some SERIOUS ice thickness makeup goin' on in Greenland. So now we're talking thicknesses that have to approach 6000, 7000 feet in order to bring the average thickness back up to the purported 5000 ft average.

But that's not the half of it.

Remember we're ONLY talking about ice thickness of Greenland. We've not even broached the subject of ground topography yet. Yikes. That means that WITHOUT anything but flat land, Greenland's upper elevation is 5000 ft.

From that I concluded (smart guy that I am) that Greenland, though I was unaware of it, must have mountains that are AT LEAST as big as the peaks of the Rocky Mountain Range. And because the 5000 ft thick ice is an average ice thickness, those mountains could be entirely ice.

They're not.

I was right. Greenland has peaks of 12,000 ft, 11,000 ft and at least two that are 9,000 feet. Depending on what you need to prove though, the bad news is that those peaks are not solid ice. They are rock.

So that means that in order to come back up to that 5,000 ft ice average, one is going to have to find some serious area to house it because it's not sitting atop those peaks – it's resting down in their crevices. Crevices that don't leave enough cu ft area for a block of ice a mile thick and three times the size of Texas.

Oh, did I mention that I think you actually do need pretty much that whole 5000 ft average thick block of ice to come up with the nearly 30 ft of sea level rise that the global warming scientists have predicted is going to come rushing our way in the next few years ??? Yeah, it's that 5000 ft average that gives those huge sea level rise numbers.

Wanna hear another bummer? (I mean, a bummer if your fighting for your right to believe in apocalypse)…

Apparently scientists in very warm clothing (or sitting in very cushy labs observing satellite data) have observed that even with the melt that is occurring at the lower elevations of Greenland, Greenland is still experiencing a net GROWTH of ice because of the gains it is having in its upper elevations (and as we've established…..MAN, has Greenland got UPPER elevations!!!!!). They are even speculating that it may be warming conditions that are causing MUCH more snowfall in the upper elevations of Greenland.

Ain't Mother Nature a bitch?!!

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'-banned
From: dianavan
Date: 29 Jan 07 - 02:21 PM

John - The metric system confuses many Americans, myself included. I've been in Canada for over 30 years and still have trouble 'thinking metric' because I didn't learn it in school.

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'-banned
From: Don Firth
Date: 29 Jan 07 - 01:37 PM

"In case you're not up on your metric system. . . ."

John, within my experience, most Americans I know, and that includes the vast majority the people I know personally, are very fuzzy on the metric system, often not knowing a kilometer from a centimeter. I am fuzzy on it myself and still don't have the conversion tables down solid. For that matter, I've met Canadians who are a bit bewildered when it comes to converting between Celsius and Fahrenheit, for example. My son, who has been living in Canada for a couple of decades, is one of them. My intention, in converting meters to feet in my above post was exactly as I said it was:   to avoid confusion and to save those who might be interested the trouble of having to look up conversion tables and do the arithmetic themselves.

Now, if you want to interpret that as "patronizing" and "condescending," then that is your interpretation. Certainly not my intention. And that says more about you than it does about me.

Let's just drop this personal animosity and stick to the subject of the thread. This constant sniping makes both of us look like a pair of twits.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'-banned
From: TIA
Date: 29 Jan 07 - 08:51 AM

Key couple of paragraphs from Joh Hardly's 7:46 AM link:

"Modelling studies of the Greenland Ice Sheet mass balance under greenhouse global warming have shown that temperature increases up to about 3ºC lead to positive mass balance changes at high elevations – due to snow accumulation – and negative at low elevations – due to snow melt exceeding accumulation.

****Such models agree with the new observational results. However after that threshold is reached, potentially within the next hundred years, losses from melting would exceed accumulation from increases in snowfall – then the meltdown of the Greenland Ice Sheet would be on.****"

Emphasis added by TIA. Rush Limbaugh (among others) has trumpeted this accumulation zone thickening as proof that the shrinking ice caps are a fraud. As this article makes very clear, this thickening is actually conistent with global warming models.

As in all things, carefully selected data can be made to show just about anything. Always check the context.

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'-banned
From: John Hardly
Date: 29 Jan 07 - 07:52 AM

"...it seems to me that only in America is the reality of global warming being meaningfully contested."

It isn't being meaningfully contested in America. Its cause and the possibility or probability of what could or should be done about it is.

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'-banned
From: GUEST,Bardan
Date: 29 Jan 07 - 07:46 AM

Speaking as someone from outside the US who travels a fair bit and knows people from all over the place, it seems to me that only in America is the reality of global warming being meaningfully contested. Over here, anyone who claims that global warming isn't real is consigned to the lunatic fringe. (Not necesarily a reason to believe I know, but interesting nonetheless.) My guess is it has something to do with the crowd who seem to live in terror of left-wing politics ever since the cold war.

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'-banned
From: John Hardly
Date: 29 Jan 07 - 07:13 AM

This is kind of interesting. It seems to be finding that the mass of the Greenland ice sheet is staying relatively the same in that, even with the melt that is occuring at the lower elevations, there has been a steady net gain in the upper elevations. And some speculation relative to the possibility that there may be something about the warming conditions that cause the lower melt that is the very cause of the net gain in the upper elevations.

And apparently there are elevations in Greenland that are on a par with the American Rockies.

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'-banned
From: John Hardly
Date: 29 Jan 07 - 06:46 AM

It doesn't have to be addressed to me to clearly see that you are patronizing. I just can't imagine interpreting "In case you're not up on your metric system" as anything but patronizing. Well, maybe condescending as well. You have trouble addressing your peers as it seems you have none.

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'-banned
From: GUEST,JTT
Date: 29 Jan 07 - 03:21 AM

May I suggest that everyone posting here look at the film before posting any more about it?

I was impressed particularly by one figure in the film - the study showing that virtually all peer-reviewed scientific articles warn of catastrophic global warming, while a large proportion of articles in the popular press dismiss the idea.

So scientists, who need to protect their reputation, are warning of the danger, while journalists, who need to protect their advertising revenue, are pooh-poohing it.

One of the greatest dangers is that the Atlantic Conveyor - the current running from Mexico to Greenland and back, salinating the sea, warming it, providing an ecosystem for thousands of marine species - may be destroyed if the tongue of ice near Denmark that spurs it back towards Mexico breaks off.

If this happens, and it's now considered almost certain to happen, very fast we'll have an ice age in the eastern US and northern Europe.

Someone invent an alternative to oil, quick.

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'-banned
From: Don Firth
Date: 29 Jan 07 - 02:19 AM

Excellent web sites both, TIA. Thank you. I've turned them into links, HERE and HERE

John, I'm not patronizing anyone, nor am I being condescending as you have accused me of being. Some folks, particularly Americans, are not up on the metric system. I know that a meter is about 3" more than a yard, but when you have a lot of meters, those three inches add up, so I worked out the conversion myself just to be sure, and posted it to save others the bother.

Sorry if it disappoints you, but not everything I write here is addressed to, or about, you.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'-banned
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 29 Jan 07 - 12:56 AM

Sorry. Me at 11:58 above.

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'-banned
From: Naemanson
Date: 29 Jan 07 - 12:36 AM

I'm not going to try to out-quote everyone here. It is useless to try to get people to shift their position based on research or political arguments. What we need is clear anecdotal evidence.

Remember the iceman? Hikers in the alps found him and reported the body as being a modern hiker. But when the authorities got there they found that he had actually be frozen there for 5,300 years. So let's work this out. Over 5,000 years ago, before the great pyramids were built this man was trying to cross the mountains and he was lost. For 5,000 years he has been covered in ice. NOW the ice is melting.

Why? Does it matter? The FACTS are correct. The ice is melting. It MIGHT be us. It might not. Once again, if we do nothing and it is caused by us then the results will be catastrophic. If we do something and it was not our fault then we prepare for and escape catastrophe and we clean up the environment.

So, why are we arguing? Why can't the human race look beyond the next few years and look at the big picture?

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'-banned
From: fumblefingers
Date: 29 Jan 07 - 12:09 AM

According to what I've read, the earth has gone through a number of ice ages and temperature increases resulting in thaws. Most of this took place before human existence. Who or what caused all those thaws? Was it perhaps volcanic emissions or maybe dinosaur flatulence?

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'-banned
From: Don Firth
Date: 29 Jan 07 - 12:03 AM

Slight misstatement above. The ice cube displaces its own weight, not volume. The volume of ice is slightly—very slightly—larger than its equivalent weight as water, but nowhere near enough to account for the scam that Rush Limbaugh was trying to peddle.

20,000 years ago, when the last ice age was still on, the sea level was 160 feet lower than it is now. That's what created all the "land bridges" that allowed for migrations, such as the influx of peoples who became the Native Americans. These land bridges have since disappeared, but there is still sufficient ice to raise the sea level enough to inundate a substantial amount of dry land. Things have been relatively stable since the end of the last ice age, but suddenly the ice is melting again. The primary precipitating factor is the man-cause increase in greenhouse gasses.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'-banned
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Jan 07 - 11:58 PM

When you want information on any topic, don't trust bloggers, don't trust talkshow pundits, don't trust folk music forum pundits, and don't trust TIA. Trust the experts (thousands of them). For global warning, try starting here. Notice the word "start". This is not the be-all-end-all:

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/global-warming-faq.html

For politicizing science, the above also holds true. Start (*start*) here:

http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/interference/a-to-z-guide-to-political.html

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'-banned
From: John Hardly
Date: 28 Jan 07 - 11:46 PM

"In case you're not up on your metric system"

Just showing off that patented patronizer, huh?

282RA,

I looked at your links and it sent me looking for how the two things (your figures and the ones I got from the National Geographic site) could both be true. I had the hardest time finding maps of Greenland to show me the exact location of the Humboldt glacier (finally found its coordinates and sussed it out from there).

Since the Humboldt Glacier is a VERY large part of the whole of the Greenland Icesheet, and it's only 300-400ft at its thickest, that means that the elevations on Greenland have to be approaching those of the rocky mountains. I mean, at 5000 ft AVERAGE thickness, that means the peaks have to be two or three times that high -- or else the entire top elevation of the entirety of Greenland is higher than the highest peak of the Appalachian mountain range.

Need to do some further digging. Are the elevations on Greenland really as tall as the Rockies? I'd never heard that before.

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'-banned
From: Don Firth
Date: 28 Jan 07 - 11:16 PM

An ice cube in water (or whiskey) displaces it's own volume, hence when the ice cube melts, the level in the glass stays the same. But if you put the ice cube in another glass, let it melt, and then pour it into the whiskey glass, the volume increases

Simple arithmetic.

The ice on land is like the ice cube in its own glass before it's poured into the whiskey. Rush Limbaugh used that argument a few years ago. It was bogus then, and reality hasn't changed that much since then. Still bogus.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'-banned
From: Ebbie
Date: 28 Jan 07 - 10:21 PM

Ice will expand as it melts? Whose vote is that?

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'-banned
From: GUEST,Truther
Date: 28 Jan 07 - 10:14 PM

Okay, so there's one vote for the higher water mark when the ice cubes melt. That means ice will EXPAND when it melts. Wonder why those bottles explode in my freezer? I think I learned not to forget the bottles in the freezer by the time I was 10.

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'-banned
From: Ebbie
Date: 28 Jan 07 - 10:05 PM

Truther (HA!), you say: "If you have ice cubes in a glass of water and measure the water level (put a mark on the side of the glass), then let the ice melt, the liquid level will be ABOVE the mark on the glass?"

Most people have learned differently by the time they are 10 years old. Surely you don't expect anyone here to make that mistake?

So, now, consider: What about ice that is currently on land? Why do you think Antarctica is called a continent?

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'-banned
From: GUEST,Truther
Date: 28 Jan 07 - 09:52 PM

So let me get this straight. If you have ice cubes in a glass of water and measure the water level (put a mark on the side of the glass), then let the ice melt, the liquid level will be ABOVE the mark on the glass?

Now THAT'S some pretty special science. I always thought frozen water took up more space than liquid water, but now I learn it doesn't. Same as I discovered Continuation of Angular Momentum was suspended on 9/11 when the WTC towers fell.

We just left a 7-year cycle of record-high solar activity, and now we're entering one that'll be 50% greater, scientists say. Sure things are going to heat up, so here comes Al Gore, on cue, trying to use a natural phemonenon to make some fast tax profit for his commie U.N. army. Ponder Al Gore's scorched-earth scenario this week, my fellow Americans, when the Siberian cold masses hit us. When your power lines are down and you're freezing to death, remember that Al Gore says it's all in your mind.

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'-banned
From: 282RA
Date: 28 Jan 07 - 09:25 PM

>>The following link gives you a pdf file of 111 KB. I'm sure you will read it as you have such an open mind: ponder this<<

You'd think if this character, whoever he is, had any relevent evidence that refutes the fact that earth is warming up that he would want a public debate on the subject to prove what a crock it is. But all this letter amounts to is "You're disrespecting us and therefore trampling our constitutional rights so why don't you just resign?" To which he deserves the coveted, "Why don't you just shut the fuck up, asshole" award. The guy sounds like Shambles which shows you how much his opinion is worth.

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'-banned
From: Don Firth
Date: 28 Jan 07 - 07:25 PM

I read it, pdq, and it's a crock. A screed in defense of Exxon-Mobile's resistance to the whole idea of pollution and global warming (and why might that be, I wonder?), submitting to regulations, and being required to clean up their act.   Remember Prince William sound? Being legally required to clean up that bit of sloppiness cost Exxon-Mobile a bundle!

And just who is the Viscount Monckton of Brenchley anyway, and what makes him any kind of authority on global warming?

I see nothing in that document that goes beyond the usual whining and attempting to obscure the facts about something that the vast majority of climatologist are in agreement about.

Yes, I am open-minded. But not so open-minded that my brain has dropped out.

Don Firth