Man made Global Warming

[Angus]

"How the hell do they know that it didn't melt faster or grow faster than they think in the past?"

By looking into Ice cores, which I belive you described once as a silly waste of time.
Ice cores reveil the quantity of snowfall and what the atmosphere was like at this and that time back to several thousand years. In antarctica, uou can go as far back as 740.000 years.
(Link: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/06/040611080100.htm)

Anyway, give or take some cycles of temperature changes, we are seeing melting on both caps, which have not occured for a VERY long time, nothing so small as our periodic swings in temperature. Measure the temp in Texas as you like, there is no way getting arount what the big result is.
This:
"Why is the globe not heating at any rate that is unusual? It has heated and cooled at higher rates in the past... "

Yeah, but you have to go MILLIONS of years back to match the last 100 or so. So, back to dino times, - that is indeed news IMHO. So, the globe is indeed heating (and thereby melting ice) at an unusual rate. The sun curve follows the heat curve, but not at the same angle I'm afraid....

This:
"and... what happened to the ice age these chicken littles predicted to cover North Amercia by the year 2000? where are these "scientists" now? they took their grant money and ran... no one is holding them accountable now."

Apart from predictions of the possibility of a "nuclear" winter, I completely missed these predictions, and I did my metreology studies in the 80's. Maybe it was a rather American thing like the warming denialism?

[Jackal1]

Originally posted by Angus
Hehe, explain this one then:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4228411.stm

"A team of UK researchers claims to have new evidence that global warming is melting the ice in Antarctica faster than had previously been thought.
Scientists from the British Antarctic Survey (Bas) say the rise in sea levels around the world caused by the melting may have been under-estimated.

It is thought that over 13,000 sq km of sea ice in the Antarctic Peninsula has been lost over the last 50 years.
"

Hehe. OK.
From your article..."It is not known whether the melting is the result of a natural event or the result of global warming."



That`s not even considering this...."A team of UK researchers"  


Then to go on, we will use your quote from the article.

 

A team of UK researchers claims to have new evidence that global warming is melting the ice in Antarctica faster than had previously been thought.

Previously been thought by who , whom, whodat?

Scientists from the British Antarctic Survey (Bas) say the rise in sea levels around the world caused by the melting may have been under-estimated.

Under-estimated by who, whom , whodat?

Am I the only one who reads this as "We didn`t have a clue then , but we sure don`t have one now"?

[Curval]

Originally posted by Angus
Apart from predictions of the possibility of a "nuclear" winter, I completely missed these predictions, and I did my metreology studies in the 80's. Maybe it was a rather American thing like the warming denialism?

Indeed.

I think lazs is just regurgitating something he read again.

[Curval]

Originally posted by Jackal1
That`s not even considering this...."A team of UK researchers"  

Jackal...have you not seen the Great Global Warming Swindle?  It is the scientific basis upon which lazs denies GW.

It's a BBC show....a UK show.

[Jackal1]

Originally posted by Curval
It's a BBC show....a UK show.
 

And it`s been played on everything from youtube ,  channel 1 through 5000 , and every video hosting on the net.
Your point is?

Maybe you are suggesting that the BBC has now fell in line with China and Saudi Arabia as you suggested was so amusing in the other thread.

Jackal...you and lazs etc are firmly on the side of China and Saudi Arabia in the GW debate.

Is that it?

Also who is etc?

[Curval]

My point is very simple.  Your attempt to belittle something purely because it comes out of the UK is hypocricy given that you and lazs are hanging your hats on a show that was produced in the UK and which interviewed scientists that were predominately also from the UK.

"etc" includes all of the other ostriches on this board that deny that humans contribute at all to GW.

.....like the Chinese and Saudi bureaucrats that I referred to.

The BBC have already apologised for showing the swindle show.

[Jackal1]

One more note I`d like to add about this quote from the article in question your honor.

A team of UK researchers claims to have new evidence that global warming is melting the ice in Antarctica faster than had previously been thought

Global warming is causing the ice to melt in Anartica??????
So......an unproven , unagreed upon , highly debatable , non-supported theory is casing the ice to melt. That`s a pretty big stretch in anyone`s book.
Here`s the cure then. Stop paying these morons to come up with off the wall , money scamming theories and the ice will stop melting.

[Angus]

No matter what words you use, and what calculations, the caps are shrinking, - melting in a way that has not occured in the times of mankind, and well more.
Always funny to see the same arguments, typically: "It ain't warming", then going to "so what, screw the bears and penguins". The people saying one week "it ain't warming" go to "it's natural", then on to "we can't do anything about it", then to "well anyway, we won't do anything about it"
In the meantime, the caps are melting at record speed. Was expected and is happening. No matter how much money Exxon pays people to say otherwise....

[Jackal1]

Originally posted by Curval
My point is very simple.  Your attempt to belittle something purely because it comes out of the UK is hypocricy  

Geeez Louise. Just exactly how do you figure I attempted to belittle anything because it comes out of the UK????????

To continue.....

Your attempt to belittle something purely because it comes out of the UK is hypocricy given that you and lazs are hanging your hats on a show that was produced in the UK and which interviewed scientists that were predominately also from the UK.

Maybe you can point me to where you got the idea that I was "hanging my hat" on this show. Can you do that for me?


And then................

"etc" includes all of the other ostriches on this board that deny that humans contribute at all to GW.

I could in turn say......"Run down the hill a little faster to insure you keep slack in the rope , that is connected to the ring in your nose , that you are being led around by."  

Further confusion and switching horses in the middle of the stream.

The BBC have already apologised for showing the swindle show

So..... is that a good thing or a bad thing in your opinion and where does that coincide with global warming?
You stated above....

on a show that was produced in the UK and which interviewed scientists that were predominately also from the UK.

I just don`t get it. A show that was produced in the UK and interviewed scientists from the UK is totaly disagreeable to your way of thinking......but it`s a good thing the BBC apologized for showing it???
Am I reading you right?
Now...who was it that was accusing

hypocricy

?

[Curval]

Originally posted by Jackal1
Hehe. OK.
From your article..."It is not known whether the melting is the result of a natural event or the result of global warming."



That`s not even considering this...."A team of UK researchers"  
 

So, why did you put the rofl smilie icon next to your comment about UK researchers?

Why even mention it?

I naturally assumed that as you so vehemently deny global warming that you agree with lazs on the impact of the swindle show.  Look a little further up this thread...he mentions it AGAIN and refers Angus to it.

I'm not sure why you think I am being hypocritical.  I could care less what the BBC shows on its broadcasts.  Lazs is the one who continually looks to it as scientific proof that there is no GW....and it is British, something you think deserves a ROFL afterwards when you mention it.

[Jackal1]

Originally posted by Curval
So, why did you put the rofl smilie icon next to your comment about UK researchers?
 

Ummmmm........maybe because I find the terms researcher and scientist so loosely thrown around when it comes to this subject that I find it  hilarious.  If you have me so pegged as you seem to profess as of late you would know that.
It`s sort of a case of..... "Yesterday I couldn`t spell scientist or researcher , then someone gave me a grant and told me what they wanted my published  findings  to say. Today I R one."
Labcoats for hire.
 

Why even mention it?

Why not?

I naturally assumed that as you so vehemently deny global warming that you agree with lazs on the impact of the swindle show.

Pretty quick assuming considering just above you asked this......

Jackal...have you not seen the Great Global Warming Swindle?

.............Then felt the need to explain it to me here...........

It is the scientific basis upon which lazs denies GW.
It's a BBC show....a UK show.

Then a quick shuffle to this......................... ........................

Your attempt to belittle something purely because it comes out of the UK is hypocricy given that you and lazs are hanging your hats on a show that was produced in the UK and which interviewed scientists that were predominately also from the UK.

From pop test to a quick lesson to hypocrite to hat hanger.
I`d say all of your jumping back and forth and assuming has you totaly confused by the looks of it.

Look a little further up this thread...he mentions it AGAIN and refers Angus to it.

And??????????????

I'm not sure why you think I am being hypocritical.

Yea, I think that is pretty evident.

I could care less what the BBC shows on its broadcasts.

So it only bothers you because Laz mentions it or what?
I certainly could care less what the BBC airs or does not air.
I don`t depend on the BBC for info. In this case , as mentioned before, the show has been on every channel that has a spot for it and on every video hosting site that has room for it , as far as I know.
If the BBC aired it , then found they felt that an apology was needed for airing it, then I would probably get the impression that they stepped on the wrong toes and got their hands spanked. In other words manipulated by something or some group that finds it highly unacceptable to publicly express views that do not coincide with the message that they wish to stand on. That`s just a guess. I know nothing of the circumstances.  (There`s that little guy again)

Lazs is the one who continually looks to it as scientific proof that there is no GW

And that upsets you in some way?

and it is British, something you think deserves a ROFL afterwards when you mention it.

Read above for full details and an indepth explanation as to why assuming too much can be avoided by knowing what you are talking about before you stick your foot in your own mouth.  

 (There he is again. This time he is used in the context of humor i.e. a joke son, a joke)

[Hap]

Angus, thanks for your input on this thread.  Also, though I know you didn't intend this result, I was able to take those who made ad hominem attacks &/or played to the cheap seats and update the ignore list.

Worked great too!

All the Best,

hap

[Jackal1]

I think I just spotted an ostrich.

[Curval]

Jackal...you write something and put a ROFL after it that certainly appears to be a slam against the UK and then you need explain it as follows:

"Ummmmm........maybe because I find the terms researcher and scientist so loosely thrown around when it comes to this subject that I find it hilarious. If you have me so pegged as you seem to profess as of late you would know that.
It`s sort of a case of..... "Yesterday I couldn`t spell scientist or researcher , then someone gave me a grant and told me what they wanted my published findings to say. Today I R one."
Labcoats for hire."

You expect waaaaay too much out of your "readers".  Silly me for not realising that THIS is what you meant.

lol

[Angus]

Well, pardon me, but I rather take a UK "scientist" (Who probably has a British qualified university degree in i.e. physics or metreology) to be worthy of his words than somebody called Jackal1. Same goes vs a "scientist or researcher" who is sponsored by a corporation who's absolute short-term benefit is that global warming does NOT get connected to human activity.
hehe, here's a new thing.
It's MAN, stupid.
(Wonder if I get away with this)