backtop


Print 197 comment(s) - last by DPercy.. on Jul 10 at 3:56 PM


From Robert E. Peary to recent solo explorer Wave Vidmar (pictured), many have travelled to the geographic North Pole to view the icy spot. However, photos like this may soon be a keepsake, as the North Pole ice is melting like ice cream in the summer sun, and may be ice-free as soon as this year.  (Source: Cal State Fullerton)
After last year's thin ice cover, the North Pole is poised to vanish due to global warming in a short time

DailyTech has previously covered the frantic pace of melt in Greenland, which is accelerating, dumping vast amounts of water into the sea.  Meanwhile, the North Pole has been steadily melting away as well.  Fortunately, the North Pole ice is floating, and thus will not affect sea levels, but its dissolution is an important indicator of warming.

While some remain critical that global warming is occurring at all, the melting of the North Pole represents a sharp indicator against voices of doubt.  Now scientists are predicting that a major milestone will be reached this summer or next -- the disappearance of the North Pole's ice cover during the Arctic Summer.

To most, imagining the North Pole without ice -- only water -- is an incredible prospect.  But that's the reality of a warming world.

The prediction comes from the U.S.'s top climate researchers at the National Snow and Ice Data Center in Boulder, Colorado.  They predict that in September, there is a good chance that the ice will be gone on the pole. 

While this is obviously a rather sobering event, the scientists aren't afraid to poke a little fun at the climatological milestone.  Says the center's senior research scientist, Mark Serreze, "We kind of have an informal betting pool going around in our center and that betting pool is 'does the North Pole melt out this summer?'"

About half the researchers are betting that the geographic pole, currently covered in ice will be ice free this fall.  Last year already saw a similarly landmark event -- the Northwest Passage was ice free last September for the first time in recorded history.

All of these events are merely part of a larger trend according to researchers.  Says Serreze, "What we've seen through the past few decades is the Arctic sea ice cover is becoming thinner and thinner as the system warms up."

Why are they uncertain about whether this summer's warmth will pierce the polar ice?  The warming fluctuates largely with weather patterns, so the metaphorical straw that breaks the camel's back will likely be weather, either this year or next.

"Last year, we had sort of a perfect weather pattern to get rid of ice to open up that Northwest Passage,"  explains Serreze, "This year, a different pattern can set up. so maybe we'll preserve some ice there. We're in a wait-and-see mode right now. We'll see what happens."

While the event is significant, it will not cause any problems says Serreze.

He states, "From the viewpoint of the science, the North Pole is just another point in the globe, but it does have this symbolic meaning.  There's supposed to be ice at the North Pole. The fact that we may not have any by the end of this summer could be quite a symbolic change."

He does say that the rate of disappearance still "astounds" him, even though he's used to seeing unusual weather daily.  He says the development is just a sign of how global warming is picking up its pace.

Says Serreze, "Five years ago, to think that we'd even be talking about the possibility of the North Pole melting out in the summer, I would have never thought it.  If you talked to me or other scientists just a few years ago, we were saying that we might lose all or most of the summer sea ice cover by anywhere from 2050 to 2100.  Then, recently, we kind of revised those estimates, maybe as early as 2030. Now, there's people out there saying it might be even before that. So, things are happening pretty quick up there."

Some skeptics of global warming have also suggested that the melt is part of a cyclical process.  Flat out wrong, says Serreze.  He explains, "It's not cyclical at this point. I think we understand the physics behind this pretty well.  We've known for at least 30 years, from our earliest climate models, that it's the Arctic where we'd see the first signs of global warming."

Not above a bit of scolding of global warming skeptical, Serreze says, "It's a situation where we hate to say we told you so, but we told you so."

While Serreze says that the climate effects of warming may be damaging, there may be a bit of a silver lining for the time being in the clouds of global warming.  The disappearance of ice will allow oil to be saved on shipping routes by using the Northwest Passage.  Also, speaking of oil, there are large oil reserves at the pole.  In perhaps the greatest irony, global warming may free these reserves, which in turn will help contribute to more warming.

Much understanding remains to be developed of the causes, mechanics, and ramifications of warming, but as the stark face of reality rears its ugly head in the form of historic melting, it becomes clear that there's little room remaining for skepticism that massive climate change is indeed occurring.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Again, a disappointingly inaccurate article
By masher2 (blog) on 6/30/2008 12:29:08 AM , Rating: 2
How many things can Jason get wrong? First, his headline implies the North Pole will be ice free, whereas the original story only claimed it "might" happen.

Second, the prediction was in no way tied to global warming -- the North Pole has been steadily melting for at least the last 7,000 years -- since the end of the last Ice Age.

Third, the scientist quoted in this story has already distanced himself from it, saying, and I quote:
quote:
I hope that I will not be pilloried by the community for being a part of this story. From what I can gather, it started with a piece in “National Geographic Online”, moved to a piece in “The Independent”, another piece on CNN, and then quickly grew out of all reasonable proportion...
Fourth, conveniently left out is the fact that Southern sea ice is approaching unprecedented levels. The fact that the North Pole is warming yet the South Pole cooling is a glaring defect in conventional GW theory.




RE: Again, a disappointingly inaccurate article
By borismkv on 6/30/08, Rating: 0
RE: Again, a disappointingly inaccurate article
By masher2 (blog) on 6/30/2008 12:45:07 AM , Rating: 2
I forgot the most damning fact of all. Even for the North Pole, sea ice levels today are higher than they were last year. Arctic sea ice has actually rebounded in the past year, which makes the timing of this story doubly suspect.


RE: Again, a disappointingly inaccurate article
By Andy35W on 6/30/2008 1:02:36 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I forgot the most damning fact of all. Even for the North Pole, sea ice levels today are higher than they were last year. Arctic sea ice has actually rebounded in the past year, which makes the timing of this story doubly suspect.


Ice extent is the same as for last year at this time, see

http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_im...

it has a steeper curve than last year showing more rapid melting than last year though.


RE: Again, a disappointingly inaccurate article
By masher2 (blog) on 6/30/2008 1:14:12 AM , Rating: 2
> "Ice extent is the same as for last year at this time"

You've misread your graph. The solid blue line is 2008 data, and is clearly above 2007.


RE: Again, a disappointingly inaccurate article
By JonnyDough on 6/30/08, Rating: 0
RE: Again, a disappointingly inaccurate article
By MRwizard on 6/30/2008 4:01:58 AM , Rating: 5
no, Masher is correct. we ARE doing better than last year


RE: Again, a disappointingly inaccurate article
By Solandri on 6/30/2008 4:50:59 AM , Rating: 5
They're both right. There is more ice this year than last due to a cooler winter, so the amount of ice this year still exceeds the amount of ice at the same time last year (masher2 is right). But the ice this year is melting faster than the ice last year (Andy35W is right).

Anyway, it's pointless arguing about this. It's folly to try to extrapolate trends from just one or even several year's worth of data. After 5-10 years if a trend becomes clear, the people who were right at year 1 or year 2 will proudly proclaim that they knew it all along, when in reality they were idiots who based on insufficient data jumped to premature conclusions which just happened to be correct guesses. You'll notice the scientists are pretty up-front that they are just placing bets based on guesses for fun.


RE: Again, a disappointingly inaccurate article
By JonnyDough on 6/30/08, Rating: -1
RE: Again, a disappointingly inaccurate article
By Ringold on 6/30/2008 5:39:52 AM , Rating: 4
You attack masher for stating things not backed up by substantial data, then make apocalyptic forecasts not based on any substantial data beyond your own opinion. Scientists estimate sea level rise and crop damage, economists take that data and examine its economic impacts. Taking the IPCC's own worst-case scenario, the damage will be more annoying than catastrophic, and it'll be felt disproportionately by those who in the future are already in a weak economic state (read: Africa). There is no real evidence, beyond speculation from people who have no experience with economic analysis or thought, to suggest anything worse.

So, take your pick JonnyDough. Will you stick with data and the consensus of experts, or do you prefer rhetorical points instead? While scientists may be largely behind you on global warming, economists are not at all behind you on this doomsday scenario bull.


RE: Again, a disappointingly inaccurate article
By JonnyDough on 6/30/08, Rating: -1
RE: Again, a disappointingly inaccurate article
By masher2 (blog) on 6/30/2008 6:02:08 AM , Rating: 4
> "What I will "stick with" is the consensus of the experts on every piece of material that I have read about how the sea levels are on the rise, and that many coastal areas will be flooded out. "

If you actually talk to climatologists (or better yet, read their research papers), you'll hear an entirely different story. Sea level is expected to keep rising the same 2-3mm/year it has been for the last 7,000 years...resulting in a grand total of a ~1 foot rise over the next century.

That's not sufficient to flood even a one hundred-thousandth of Florida, much less "half" of it.


RE: Again, a disappointingly inaccurate article
By omnicronx on 6/30/2008 9:19:20 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
Sea level is expected to keep rising the same 2-3mm/year it has been for the last 7,000 years...resulting in a grand total of a ~1 foot rise over the next century.
But that's not what Al Gore told me, and what he says must be true! I think I will take the word of a person with absolutely no expertise over a climatologist any day thank you...


RE: Again, a disappointingly inaccurate article
By dark matter on 6/30/2008 4:20:22 PM , Rating: 1
Wow, now you're saying that the sea level has rose 21 meters (69~ foot) in the last 7,000 years, and at such an amazingly steady pace as well?

Where did you get this startingly fascinating information from? Would you be so kind and share it with us?


RE: Again, a disappointingly inaccurate article
By masher2 (blog) on 6/30/2008 5:29:57 PM , Rating: 5
> "Wow, now you're saying that the sea level has rose 21 meters (69~ foot) in the last 7,000 years"

Actually, sea level has risen more than 120 meters in the last 20,000 years. Sea level rise lately has actually been a bit slower than normal.

> "Where did you get this startingly fascinating information from? "

I knew this from basic high school science. But since you apparently missed that year, here's the data in nice chart form, straight from the UN IPCC:

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/fig11-4.h...

Now, when you're done examining that graph, perhaps you can work on getting your foot out of your mouth.


By jbartabas on 6/30/2008 7:18:30 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Masher : If you actually talk to climatologists (or better yet, read their research papers), you'll hear an entirely different story. Sea level is expected to keep rising the same 2-3mm/year it has been for the last 7,000 years...


I am sure it is unintentional, but the sentence is a tiny bit misleading. It seems that current increase is somehow following a smooth and quiet historical trend ... Actually most of the sea rise you're talking about occurred close to the 7,000 year BP (i.e. when we were a bit closer to the end of the last glacial period). Sea level rise has been considerably slowing down in the last millenia. Recent millienia have seen sea level rise roughly ten time smaller than those you are talking about (7,000 years ago) ... except for the last century of course. For that one you're correct, we're back in time in a way ... and that's the point.

quote:
Masher : [...]Actually, sea level has risen more than 120 meters in the last 20,000 years. Sea level rise lately has actually been a bit slower than normal.


Well if you define "normal" as the highs of the transition Glacial/interglacial, then you're right, we've been a bit slow recently ... The point is that we should have been even slower, if not for a recent increase in the speed of sea level rise.

From your own link:
quote:
Comparison of the rate of sea level rise over the last 100 years (1.0 to 2.0 mm/yr) with the geological rate over the last two millennia (0.1 to 0.2 mm/yr; Section 11.3.1) implies a comparatively recent acceleration in the rate of sea level rise.


Here are a few illustrations in see level rise over the last thousands years:

First since the transition glacial/interglacial
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1d...
Since the last 8,000 years:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Holocene_S...


By Grabo on 7/1/2008 4:39:20 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
Now, when you're done examining that graph, perhaps you can work on getting your foot out of your mouth.


What I like about you is that you insult everyone and know everything. What I don't like is that you (continue to) take isolated graphs or numbers from credible sources and draw your own conclusions.

Neatly summarized by the wikipedia :
"Sea-level has risen about 130 meters (400 ft) since the peak of the last ice age about 18,000 years ago. Most of the rise occurred before 6,000 years ago. From 3,000 years ago to the start of the 19th century sea level was almost constant, rising at 0.1 to 0.2 mm/yr.Since 1900 the level has risen at 1 to 2 mm/yr; since 1993 satellite altimetry from TOPEX/Poseidon indicates a rate of rise of 3.1 ± 0.7 mm yr–1 . "

How reliable wiki is is of course entirely based on the sources, and the sources to that are mostly IPCC papers.

When you say that sea level rise has 'actually been a bit slower than normal', that makes sense from a certain perspective (the 20k year perspective) (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1d... )
but since we are looking at possible effects, and what the human impact is, it may not be entirely accurate to not pay special attention to the post-industrialisation times for the human race.


By danrien on 6/30/2008 9:39:23 AM , Rating: 2
so a warming climate has nothing to do with a melting ice cap?


RE: Again, a disappointingly inaccurate article
By FITCamaro on 6/30/2008 6:39:19 AM , Rating: 1
So if this doomsday scenario is going to happen why are you still using a computer. It uses energy. It had to be produced. Do you work? You shouldn't. You use gas to get to work. They use electricity. All this stuff had to be made somewhere which used resources, burned fossil fuel, etc.

I'm just speaking from the mindset of people like you who think we should abandon the modern world due to a theory and come up with crap like The Day After Tomorrow to try and frighten people.


By FITCamaro on 6/30/2008 8:19:01 AM , Rating: 2
The truth hurts doesn't it.


By tallcool1 on 6/30/2008 12:19:01 PM , Rating: 3
Can nothing stop the Global Warming frieght train?
This bandwagon spin machine is out of control.
There was a guy on the news the other day talking about how whales where unhappy with the global warming and that because of it there where not going to mate as much.

People will attach anything and everything to "global warming" these days.


By masher2 (blog) on 6/30/2008 5:45:17 AM , Rating: 5
> "Except that there is data over 1000's of years. "

You're confused. We have Antarctic ice records (the Vostok ice cores, EPICA, etc) that are thousands of years old...but these don't tell us the total amount of floating sea ice....and that's all there is at the North pole. The only ice on bedrock is at Antarctica or Greenland.

The "recorded history" for sea ice extent stretches back to 1979 only, the year satellite monitoring began. And what does that record show? Take a look for yourself:

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/glo...

> "Some human beings will likely survive the warming of the earth, but it's likely that life on land will be completely wiped out"

Wow, talk about your tinfoil hat theories.


By psychobriggsy on 6/30/2008 7:30:59 AM , Rating: 2
You started off good, but to then claim that a few degrees extra heat in the atmosphere would reactivate volcanoes ...

Earth isn't static, but rapid changes in climates do lead to mass extinctions. Mankind would probably survive with some major losses caused by famines/droughts/etc. There's a discussion as to whether extra cloud cover would lead to a cooling or a slowing of the warming effect, etc, etc, the world's best trained climate scientists are working on this. Believe it or not, they're 10000x more qualified to talk about things than anyone here. I tend to believe the expert in the field's opinion in general in any aspect of life, but not politicians who bend things for their own good.


By HueyD on 6/30/2008 8:46:56 AM , Rating: 2
It's not like this has not happened before....
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6276576....

And what's wrong with more plant food in the air? Bring on global warming!!! It will help my garden.


RE: Again, a disappointingly inaccurate article
By AntiM on 6/30/08, Rating: -1
RE: Again, a disappointingly inaccurate article
By masher2 (blog) on 6/30/2008 9:52:00 AM , Rating: 5
> "Basically, as the water in the Artic ocean becomes less saline because of the influx of fresh water, then the currents that disperse the suns heat will cease to exists"

Oops -- what you're referring to is known as the thermohaline circulation shutodwn, and its already been widely discredited. A few rabid environmentalists didn't get the memo, but its not seriously discussed in scientific circles any more.


By dark matter on 6/30/2008 4:28:22 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, decreased salinaty affects have not been widely discredited.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v439/n7074/fu...

Unless of course you are going to provide your source.


By jbartabas on 6/30/2008 6:11:38 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Oops -- what you're referring to is known as the thermohaline circulation shutodwn, and its already been widely discredited. A few rabid environmentalists didn't get the memo, but its not seriously discussed in scientific circles any more.


It is not "discredited" and it is certainly still very seriously discussed in scientific circles (i.e. conferences and peer reviewed publication).

I has however been qualified as a low probability high-impact scenario, but the possibility has certainly not been categorically excluded.


By omnicronx on 6/30/2008 8:52:28 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
As the ice melts, the earth warms FASTER because more of the sun's energy is absorbed by water and land than by ice.
So wrong on so many levels, funny comment though, considering the earths average temperature has been on the decline last few years. I think many of you also missed this line
quote:
Fortunately, the North Pole ice is floating, and thus will not affect sea levels
Considering the slow pace in which it happens, desalination, which is just about the only thing to be afraid of here, is not really a concern either.

I just really wish people would remember that it is the south pole that contains nearly all of the worlds fresh water (nearly 90%). When it starts melting more than its yearly melt (something like 1/3 of the pole) then call me.


By eyebeeemmpawn on 7/3/2008 9:35:02 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
You've misread your graph. The solid blue line is 2008 data, and is clearly above 2007.


I wouldn't say he's misread it, I'd say he's put his own spin on it; just as you have.


By AnnihilatorX on 6/30/2008 4:05:53 AM , Rating: 2
Arctic Sea ice rebounded last winter due to a cool winter. But recent New Scientist article (Too lazy to find which sorry) did mention that the new soft ice will unlikely to be sufficient to cover if this year's summer is hot, which the trend of temperature from last year shows it's going to be likely.


By psychobriggsy on 6/30/2008 4:27:51 AM , Rating: 4
Err, yes, oddly enough the ice re-freezes every winter.

However it doesn't freeze as thick as where it is several years thick, and thus melts quicker the next summer.

Once it has melted, the sun's energy is absorbed into the ocean, instead of being reflected into space. This accelerates the rate of melting in that area as the sea warms up.

I believe that the sea ice extent for this time of year is already below that at the same time last year. The minimal sea ice period is some time in September.

Global warming, or global climate change, is happening, be it cyclical, man-made, or just-is. Once we can get our heads around that, we can actually make real plans to deal with the consequences.


RE: Again, a disappointingly inaccurate article
By masher2 (blog) on 6/30/2008 6:03:59 AM , Rating: 5
> "I believe that the sea ice extent for this time of year is already below that at the same time last year"

No, Northern ice is slightly above, and Southern ice is substantially above. Both are higher than they were a year ago. See my link above for actual data.


RE: Again, a disappointingly inaccurate article
By masher2 (blog) on 6/30/2008 7:53:02 AM , Rating: 5
> "As the scientists say, a year or two ago they would have said 2013. Now they're putting bets on 2008 or 2009"

And a few years before that, they were saying 2050...and predicting Antarctica was warming rapidly too. That goes to show you just how inaccurate and immature climate models truly are.

> "The rate of fall-off is steeper overall, which is a worry."

Why? An ice-free arctic (which will happen eventually, of course-- it's been melting steadily for the last 7,000 years) would be the best thing for man. It would save millions of gallons of diesel fuel, for one, by allowing shipping through the Northwest passage, rather than the several-thousand-mile longer Panama route. It would unlock trillions of dollars of new resources and, of course, won't change sea levels in the slightest.

So why the panic?


By fk49 on 6/30/2008 11:58:17 PM , Rating: 2
Oh no! But what will happen to all of Al Gore's polar bears floating on sea ice?


RE: Again, a disappointingly inaccurate article
By Grabo on 7/1/08, Rating: -1
By masher2 (blog) on 7/1/2008 10:07:10 AM , Rating: 3
> "There're vast stores of carbon in permafrost and in ocean sediments and if they get warmer, they could significantly impact the rest of the world." "

Which of course is the same old doomsayer doublespeak. The problem with assuming large positive feedbacks from polar melting is that it doesn't fit the paleoclimatic record. The poles have melted many times in the past (Indeed, ice at the poles is a very temporary event, occurring at brief intervals between ice age interstitials).

And yet, in none of these past events have we seen unregulated warming. The temperature rises slightly -- an event that would be uniformly beneficial for us -- then negative feedback effects take over and the rise not only stops, but eventually begins to decline as well.

Current global climate models can't even begin to predict why this happens....which is irrefutable evidence they're still not considering the most important drivers for climate change.

> "In regards to "and, of course, won't change sea levels in the slightest.""

You might want to work on that reading comprehension a bit. My statement was clearly directed towards Arctic melting; it indeed will not change sea levels a single millimeter.


RE: Again, a disappointingly inaccurate article
By Grabo on 7/1/08, Rating: 0
By masher2 (blog) on 7/1/2008 12:18:13 PM , Rating: 3
> "Am I then more likely to believe you, or a collaborator of..."

Believe them all you wish; it still doesn't change the fact they haven't given any firm prediction, just the weasel-language that it "might" impact us...with no firm explanation of just how it would do that, or what the actual effects would be.

The paleoclimatic record doesn't support large positive feedback effects, this is indisputable. Sure, there's always the possibility that *this* time around could be different than any other time in the Earth's past. But what are the chances of that?

> "Anyway- what did I misunderstand? "

I stated that Arctic melting would not impact sea levels; you attempted to counter that by pointing to Greenland, a different place entirely. That's either a misunderstanding or intentional intellectual malfeasance.


RE: Again, a disappointingly inaccurate article
By Grabo on 7/2/2008 4:56:51 AM , Rating: 3
But seriously , how come everyone who argues against masher in this topic gets modded down every time?

While he gets modded up?

And others can write derogatory things about Mick and they get modded up, and while we try to tell Masher that the Arctic includes Greenland we get modded into tarpaulin?

This format with two people with opposite viewpoints posting blogs about the climate is good, I think, but if one is belligerent and gets modded to the skies while anyone who posts a counterpoint to him gets modded to death(no matter what they write, it seems), what's the point?


RE: Again, a disappointingly inaccurate article
By 4play on 7/3/2008 1:11:07 PM , Rating: 2
masher is a good writer, and effortlessly backs up his points with data. He is at a pro's level of debate vs all the amateurs that come on and pick a fight with him. All MMGW skeptics will boost his comments without thinking, while his points are good enough (and presented in a respectable manner) to stump MMGW advocates, who will in turn not rate him down. Also it is hard to rate up people who lose their cool and spew hate.

PS. I have no idea how to rate :p


By Andy35W on 7/3/2008 2:18:09 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
masher is a good writer, and effortlessly backs up his points with data. He is at a pro's level of debate vs all the amateurs that come on and pick a fight with him. All MMGW skeptics will boost his comments without thinking, while his points are good enough (and presented in a respectable manner) to stump MMGW advocates, who will in turn not rate him down. Also it is hard to rate up people who lose their cool and spew hate.


You are correct, he is a good writer. He also backs up his points by picked data. I do agree he's more professional than a lot of people who come on here and put the other view across, but then again he's posting at DailyTech and not a website such as realclimate.org where his responders will be a lot more professional I can assure you.

Of course both Jason and Michael cherry pick and then spin the arguement one way in their blogs. Jason tends to not say much after that and let the battle rage whilst Michael tends to weigh in (which is to be commended) but sometimes comes up short with forgetting basic science to try and google a point.

I find them both good reading though and Dalytech would be worse without them.


RE: Again, a disappointingly inaccurate article
By Grabo on 7/3/2008 2:40:56 PM , Rating: 2
'Effortlessly'..yes, but not all references are very solid.
And his 'respectable manner' isn't always so respectable; he always expresses himself in definitives, 'flat out wrong', 'entirely incorrect', and likes to dismiss whatever counter argument's source flat ouf of hand.

I think he can write though, and argue, and certainly present his text well- but also that that's part of the problem. Perhaps people get a bit blinded by that?

There's certainly something off when you get down-rated for pointing out to him that Greenland is very much part of the Arctic, but yeah, as I was saying..


By 4play on 7/4/2008 11:28:33 AM , Rating: 2
At this point it doesn't matter if he's right or not. The point I was making was that people believe him because he seems to know his stuff. If he was arguing for the tobacco companies people would still believe him, simply because of his style, because he would instantly link you to data that disputes all your points.

I set the threshold to 4 and of the 22 comments that appeared 12 were masher's. The rest were mostly ridicule comments supporting masher, with the exception of 1.

It doesn't matter if your idea's are right or wrong, as long as you present in a way that appeals to people. Clearly, those that like masher stick around, while those who don't migrate to other blogs.


By robinthakur on 7/4/2008 6:55:35 AM , Rating: 2
Amen to that, Masher effortlessly defends his points and has a knowledge which really illuminates the fact that most of his detractors seem only to have watched The Day After Tomorrow and An Inconvenient Truth and bought into the whole Human-originated Climate Change myth.

Most people are simple-thinkers and do not realise the various agendas being chucked around or the hypocrisy of somebody complaining about climate change posting from a Laptop running on Lithium Ions or a pc powered by electricity derived from fossil fuels.

As the UK government has proved, Climate Change can offer a substantial source of revenues. Congestion charging, Home Environmental Packs, Car Tax increases, Toll Roads, Petrol where 70% of the cost is a tax, Rubbish Disposal only every 2 weeks and mandatory recycling with financial penalties for non-compliance are some which occur to me. For all of this "to combat global climate change" is tagged on at the end to reassure the population that the inconvenience and blatant theft has a basis which is in all our interests. How is all this 'environmental' revenue used? Nobody knows. Its nearly as bad as adding "Because God said so"

Here's an inconvenient truth for you, people want your money, and they are regrettably willing to say anything or do anything to get it. Scientists need funding, journalists need jobs, politicians require votes and the government requires revenues to offset the cost of fighting two large wars in the world today. And the wars are about Oil, what a coincidence...


By AlexWade on 6/30/2008 7:57:05 PM , Rating: 3
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/cur...
Arctic sea ice is about 0.5 million square KM above last year's record low.

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/cur...
Antarctic sea ice is about 1 million square KM above last year's record high.

The obvious question is: how can there more ice yet less ice? Furthermore, if the Antarctic keeps up the pace, it will reach last year's record level 1 month earlier and break last year's record by about 3 million square KM. Obviously, there is no guarantee. For the past two months, the Antarctic has been gaining ice by about 3 million sq KM per month and peaks are reached mid to late September. The rate of growth would have to slow significantly and quick not to break last year's record.


By AlexWade on 6/30/2008 8:02:28 PM , Rating: 2
I wanted to put my opinion in a different post. This article is proof positive that climate change is not real. People are starting to realize the lies they are being fed. The traditional scare tactics aren't working anymore, so they must escalate. If climate change is caused by humans, why hide key information? Why try to scare people? Why not let reason take over?

People aren't scared, so they aren't going to fund the studies or read the paper or watch your program as much. To avoid drying up that honeypot, the advocates have to escalate. Of course, when the arctic ice does NOT disappear, do you think CNN or The Independent print a correction or a "I'm sorry"? Not at all, they want people to continue believe the lie.


By therealnickdanger on 6/30/2008 1:04:44 AM , Rating: 2
That's harsh... While I tend to disagree with many of Mr. Mick's conclusions, he brings a lot of great articles to the table. Besides, every contributor on this site is MOSTLY just "forwarding" news from other sites. DT is like a science/tech lens with which to view daily news.

I will say, once again, that Jason and Michael need to have their own section on DT. I'm thinking of a dual-column format, one topic, and a 2,000 word limit per topic. :P


By MrDiSante on 6/30/2008 1:59:08 AM , Rating: 1
You know, I don't even need to look at who wrote the articles anymore - if it looks like a load of baloney, you know Mick wrote it. I was half-way through the article and I felt that this read like a bunch of BS, perhaps Mick wrote it, and lo and behold I scroll up and I find that it was indeed him.

Mick, darling, stop writing crap, or if you absolutely must, go over to Engadget or Gizmodo, they're more receptive to this sort of garbage.


RE: Again, a disappointingly inaccurate article
By pauldovi on 6/30/2008 12:41:30 AM , Rating: 1
Global warming is being used by socialist as a way to increase globalization and increase regulation at increasingly higher levels. The socialists will use the human induced global warming frenzy as a well to control and regulate people as they see fit.


By psychobriggsy on 6/30/2008 4:38:34 AM , Rating: 2
Most people are put off of global warming because governments are all too quick to rush in with "green" taxes, but never provide tax cuts as an incentive to use greener goods, only taxes to increase income from the use of non-green goods.

In addition most people's attention spans don't last to the tens of years, neither do governments. This means that simply because they haven't seen cities going underwater in the past few years, that global warming doesn't exist. They could in a 100 years however, but no country has a long-term government system that can devote itself to actually putting in long term efforts to mitigate the effects.


By Ringold on 6/30/2008 4:58:22 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
but never provide tax cuts as an incentive to use greener goods


Eh? Wind power, at least here in the US, is subsidized to the point where it's hard to almost not make money. I wouldn't be shocked if a savvy accountant couldn't put a wind farm in the middle of no where, not connect it to the grid at all, and still manage to make profits appear from tax benefits.

The OP was probably more referring to the governments eagerness to use global warming to justify a vast expansion of macroeconomic control, recapturing control that governments had slowly been losing over the last couple decades due to the decline of socialism even in Europe. Political parties, both in Europe and America, are preparing to pick up the GW sword and wield it against a favorite enemy of many even before GW was an issue; free trade.

You can already hear it coming: US/EU industries will be facing carbon costs, while foreign ones will not be. The argument will then be to either hike tariffs on imports, increase subsidies for domestic firms, or a combination of both if not an outright ban on certain imports.

Global Warming is undeniably the White Knight of big-government statists the world over, descending from the sky to save shrinking government power from the prosperity and durability of free markets with an evil threat that can only inherently be battled through government action.


By HueyD on 6/30/2008 8:53:07 AM , Rating: 2
no, Man-made global warming is being used by politicians. It can't be the sun or solar activity because we can not control that.....


By JonnyDough on 6/30/2008 1:46:07 AM , Rating: 1
I believe the article headline says that it's going to happen. It does not specify WHEN.


RE: Again, a disappointingly inaccurate article
By smitty3268 on 6/30/08, Rating: 0
RE: Again, a disappointingly inaccurate article
By masher2 (blog) on 6/30/2008 5:57:59 AM , Rating: 5
> "The pace that the ice has been melting over the last few years is completely different "

I repeat: Southern sea ice has been growing in recent years. In fact, last year it reached the highest point in all recorded history. (which again, like Northern Ice, only stretches back to 1979). Earlier this year in April, it set a new record for the highest it had ever been in that particular month.

See the actual data here:

ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02135/Apr...


RE: Again, a disappointingly inaccurate article
By dark matter on 6/30/08, Rating: 0
By masher2 (blog) on 6/30/2008 5:23:14 PM , Rating: 2
> "Can you explain why the last two results use different data types?"

Ask the researchers at CSU; it's their dataset, not mine. If you don't like their results, the team at UIUC reports the same:

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/cur...

> Apart from 2008, 2007 and 2006 were shrinking compared to 2003-2005."

The overall trend is rising, as a simple linear regression shows, or anyone can see themselves from simply graphing th data.

Furthermore, you've misread the data; your above statement is incorrect. The FTP dataset I linked is April monthlies only. If you want to compare an entire year to another, you need to look at anomaly readings, which are graphed in the above link.

> "You are very liberal with the facts."

The facts are correct. I'm not responsible for your improper interpretation of them.


By smitty3268 on 6/30/2008 7:15:24 PM , Rating: 2
Obviously I was referring to the ice at the North Pole, which is what this entire article is about. I'm not sure why you keep insisting on changing the topic to the South Pole ice cover - oh wait, I guess I do.


By excelsium on 6/30/2008 8:01:08 AM , Rating: 2
Massive Global warming/cooling is a process that has gone on throughout earths history. No one can tell what is man made and what isn't at this point. We should learn how to manipulate the climate to improve living conditions for humans.


By bighairycamel on 6/30/2008 8:43:02 AM , Rating: 2
Seriously.

Downrate me for saying this, but how is Jason still allowed to write for this site? I have found myself cringing when I see his name at the top of the page (which I do first thing before I read a word of the article) for about the last 4 months, because either A) It will be filled with subtle or deliberate bias, or B) It will be propaganda strewn with little regard for facts or even logic for that matter.

Jason, try to act like a professional for crying out loud and quite trying to make this place a forum for your personal bias towards GW and your stereotyping towards creationists.


By bighairycamel on 6/30/2008 11:39:08 AM , Rating: 2
I should also mention that the proof is in the pudding. This was in the articles section at the time of my posting, and it's since been moved to Blogs much like many of his other articles due to the reasons I mentioned above.


RE: Again, a disappointingly inaccurate article
By just4U on 6/30/2008 12:50:21 PM , Rating: 2
I am pretty sure DT want's it this way. Jason and Michael's climate articles tend to generate alot of interest. Plus the debate that follows and the flow of information generated is always extremely noteworthy. Typically if Jason "spins" it wrong we still leave pretty well informed thanks in part to the comments that come after it.

I think it's brilliant personally.


By bighairycamel on 6/30/2008 2:37:23 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
I think it's brilliant personally.


I would never consider biased and deliberately erroneous journalism to be brilliant. You say you like the discussion that it brings, but I say the end doesn't justify the means.


By just4U on 6/30/2008 4:51:36 PM , Rating: 2
Doesn't it?

We see articles like this every day.. it's pretty much the norm. But here on DailyTech you come away with more then just the content within the article as people have a big long discussion on it all. Typically, you leave with alot more information to as links to other studies/articles are constantly thrown about.

This gives the reader (and those active in its discussion) the oportunity to have a real opinion and not one that's been forcefed to them.


By SilthDraeth on 6/30/2008 10:24:08 AM , Rating: 2
For one, you know Mick is wrong when he doesn't even try to argue his point beyond his initial story. I don't even read his stories any more, I just come in here to read Masher debunking the story, and check all replies to see if Mick defends anything.

I guess some people just like to abuse themselves. I wonder if he gets a kick out of posting patently false information?


By Lcook05 on 6/30/2008 11:27:42 AM , Rating: 2
It would be nice if you quoted the entire statement...

quote:
I hope that I will not be pilloried by the community for being a part of this story. From what I can gather, it started with a piece in “National Geographic Online”, moved to a piece in “The Independent”, another piece on CNN, and then quickly grew out of all reasonable proportion. A positive feedback process. I’ll be the first to agree that losing the ice at the north pole this summer would be purely symbolic, but symbolism can be pretty darned powerful.


By johnsonx on 6/30/2008 7:31:40 PM , Rating: 2
Another article on this I read said the artic ice sheet wasn't melting in the way people assume. Ocean current had carried the primary ice sheet south towards Greenland, leaving only a thin sheet at the actual pole. That thin sheet of new ice may well melt this year, but Santa's house and workshop are safe and sound near Greenland.


By johnsonx on 6/30/2008 7:31:42 PM , Rating: 2
Another article on this I read said the artic ice sheet wasn't melting in the way people assume. Ocean current had carried the primary ice sheet south towards Greenland, leaving only a thin sheet at the actual pole. That thin sheet of new ice may well melt this year, but Santa's house and workshop are safe and sound near Greenland.


By Andy35W on 7/1/2008 4:38:12 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Again, a disappointingly inaccurate article


What you mean like this

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=9725

" UN Admits to Long-term Alarmism over AIDS Epidemic "

The person saying alarmism, Helen Epstein has not even worked for the UN. So how does the UN admit to alarmism? They didn't, it's just another disappoingly inacurate sensationalist headline I'm afraid.

How many things can you get wrong?

Then there is the century of warming turned back in one year fiasco that even the original authors disowned you of when they read what you had written. Sensationalist journalism run riot was their summary I seem to recall.


By fasfax on 7/2/2008 9:38:06 AM , Rating: 2
I'm not a scientist but I remember that magnetic north moves every year. Nort Pole is nowhere near where it was when Perry was there. Isn't it possible that magnetic north moves closer to the ice shelf every year? I'm sure if we could check the longitude and latitude of Perrys north pole you would find it is nowhere near melting. Am I remembering this anolomy wrong?


By xxsk8er101xx on 7/3/2008 8:03:07 PM , Rating: 2
Don't forget about the absolute FACT that the recent warming since 1999 IS IN FACT with out any doubt due to volcanism.

It was discovered that there are volcanoes underneath contributing to the melting. This is 100% factual but you will NEVER hear this from the media.


or...
By acejj26 on 6/30/2008 12:23:06 AM , Rating: 2
http://www.canada.com/topics/news/story.html?id=81...

Apparently, the increasing volcanic activity in the arctic has nothing to do with the decrease in ice. Why aren't we seeing the same phenomenon in the antarctic? All global warming models predict warming at BOTH poles, not just one. Since the antarctic is seeing an INCREASE in ice cover, something is amiss. Either the models are wrong, or global warming isn't causing this to happen.




RE: or...
By caqde on 6/30/2008 1:14:57 AM , Rating: 2
You know there are about 7000+ things that can affect any one thing, and for humans to not see that a high use of any one material from the planet can have profound effects is to me astoundingly odd. But every time I see people point out one or two issues that could have caused it, but oddly enough they don't understand that maybe just maybe that is one of MANY events that triggered the issue.

How much this volcanic activity effects the north pole I don't know, but I am sure that it is not the only thing effecting the north pole.

I think scientists should make a list of the things that can effect the temperature of the planet and see if they can make a model good enough for most of the skeptics. Although I still think that even a perfect model won't be good enough to support the case that there is an issue no matter how insignificant or significant it is.

Anyways things I can think of.

1. Volcanic activity.
2. Atmospheric Currents (Air/Wind)
3. Oceanic Currents
4. Solar Activity (How much sun is hitting the Earth)
5. Materials in the Atmosphere and on the surface that Hold Solar Energy.

There is probably more, and I know this can get larger by adding depth to the points, but I hope people get the idea of how much you need to look at to see what is going on. I am guessing the Northern Hemisphere has more of number 5, which should in theory make the northern Hemisphere hotter, add to that the volcanic activity in the north pole, any current activity (Oceanic/Atmospheric) that may move the hot air/water in to the north pole, and any possible Solar Activity and we have melted North Pole.


RE: or...
By caqde on 6/30/2008 1:18:01 AM , Rating: 2
Well I missed

6. Tilt/Angle of the Planet..

I bet there is more.


RE: or...
By rett448 on 7/1/2008 1:27:24 PM , Rating: 2
7. ManBearPig


RE: or...
By xxsk8er101xx on 7/3/2008 8:10:31 PM , Rating: 2
You sir are

...

CORRECT!

it's also pure human arrogance to think we can be the sole contributor to destroy a planet.

Hate to break it to you but humans are to weak to contribute to anything meaningful. Surprise! Even at 7 billion we are too weak. We can barely feed ourselves.

Hey maybe we should focus on that (starvation) instead? since we can actually do something about it.


RE: or...
By Andy35W on 6/30/08, Rating: -1
RE: or...
By masher2 (blog) on 6/30/2008 1:38:48 AM , Rating: 4
Sea currents don't magically shield an entire continent from the sun shining on Antarctica's interior, thousands of kilometers away from a coast. If atmospheric CO2 truly is trapping heat, it should be most evident in the North and South poles.

Orthodox global warming theory predicted just that-- a warming signal strongest at both poles, about 3X stronger than the global average, in fact. And in fact, all throughout the 80s and 90s, the usual GW suspects predicted that Antarctica was melting, and would soon flood the planet.

But Antarctica not only isn't warming faster, its cooling , and rather rather strongly. Does it definitely disprove global warming? No, but attempting to deny its a very serious problem for the theory is flatly incorrect.


RE: or...
By andrinoaa on 6/30/08, Rating: 0
RE: or...
By Ringold on 6/30/2008 5:32:08 AM , Rating: 2
Business as usual has lead to reduced energy intensity in the US economy, continually pushing down the amount of oil consumed per unit of GDP ever since OPEC's last little tantrum. Business as usual has seen the death of the F-150 as America's most popular vehicle, and has seen the largest reversal in average monthly miles driven since data collection started at the DoT. Business as usual is seeing the launch of now two all-electric (for shorter range drives) vehicles for the masses launching in 2010; more "me too" designs may join the party before then. Business as usual has utility companies highly interested in building nuclear plants in order to reduce their dependency on volatile foreign sources of energy. Business as usual has also vastly reduced global poverty in recent decades.

In short, business as usual is heading in the direction environmentalists generally want in the United States as it already is. Whats wrong with the above environmentally friendly trend continuing while we wait for confirmation? If CO2 induced GW is an issue, we'll still be "greener" after waiting assuming oil prices remain where they are. If we act immediately on half-baked science, we could listen to Gore and blow trillions before realizing we were wrong as to the magnitude of the issue.

Admittedly, China is not going to lower CO2 emissions any time in the near future. They'll rise, and rise quickly; they're already higher, by some counts, than Americas. There is nothing anyone in America, or Europe, can do about that.


RE: or...
By FITCamaro on 6/30/2008 6:30:20 AM , Rating: 2
Actually the Volt is good for long drives since the gas generator can sustain the battery. And achieve 150 mpg while doing so.

And while I don't have an issue with making electric cars or hydrogen powered ones (my choice between the two), I want the free market to decide if they're made. While definitely the price of oil has helped these new vehicles see the light of day, it also is the new government mandated fuel economy requirements. Ones that will likely bankrupt the American auto industry because they are already fighting massive healthcare costs, increased labor costs due to having been here longer and having unions firmly entrenched in their production lines, and higher materials costs due to increased shipping costs and greater demand due to China and India modernizing.

And what is driving those increased fuel economy standards? The "green" agenda. Of course in reality its just moving the pollutants from here to Asia since all those batteries have to be developed somewhere. And it sure as hell isn't here. It's in China at un-environmentally friendly plants powered by coal plants which have none of the scrubbing our plants here in the US have. With none of the EPA regulations dictating waste disposal. And requires a ton of shipping as the necessary materials are mined, refined, and utilized in various parts of the world.


RE: or...
By zsdersw on 6/30/2008 10:35:42 AM , Rating: 2
I think more Americans would be inclined to support free markets and fiscally conservative government policy more if the party traditionally the personification of those concepts, the Republican party, wasn't held hostage by evangelicals and other social conservative nutcases.

The country is moderating on social issues, especially ones whose intensity and passion is driven by fanatical religious devotion. If the Republican party doesn't wake up to this, they're going to find themselves permanently in the minority, and their fiscal conservatism and preference for free markets along with.

Hello, Libertarian party.. you may have more members now and in the future than is currently reflected in polls.


RE: or...
By masher2 (blog) on 6/30/2008 10:44:39 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I think more Americans would be inclined to support free markets and fiscally conservative government policy more if the party traditionally the personification of those concepts, the Republican party, wasn't held hostage by evangelicals
True enough. However, if you know your history, you realize those elements were long part of the Democrats; they began migrating in the 1960s and 1970s, due to that party's embracing the even more radical fringe groups.

It's truly an opportunity for the Libertarian Party. Unfortunately, they seem perennially unable to craft a reasonable strategy for growth, and are doomed to blunder about the political scene like a bull in a china shop.


RE: or...
By zsdersw on 6/30/2008 10:47:52 AM , Rating: 2
It's a foregone conclusion that both the Democratic and Republican parties were far different in the past than they are today. Each has embraced radical fringe groups.


RE: or...
By aalaardb on 6/30/2008 6:52:25 PM , Rating: 2
Silly Masher, again spreading disinformation. Haven't you watched Mythbusters? Bulls in china shops are very studious to not knock anything over!


RE: or...
By zsdersw on 6/30/2008 10:55:31 AM , Rating: 2
I'd also add that being hijacked by neo-conservatives and their nation-building agenda is yet another albatross around the Republican party's neck.


RE: or...
By psychobriggsy on 6/30/2008 4:59:34 AM , Rating: 1
I see you got modded down by some of masher's other accounts.

The more ice there is, the more the sun's light will get reflected away. The opposite is true as well. The amount of sunlight at the poles is greatly reduced from elsewhere on the planet, hence why trees can't even grow north/south of 55 degrees latitude. At the poles, sunlight doesn't do much year-on-year. Sea currents must do a lot - and the north pole is ice floating on a sea. In addition water absorbs a lot of that available energy from the sun once exposed, so the north pole has the capacity to accelerate melting.

Sea currents are a definite contribution to global weather/climate modelling, and they're not well known, but I'd hazard a guess that the southern sea currents are actually shielding antartica from a lot of any warm water going south, whereas in the artic, the gulf stream does go straight up past Norway into the artic sea itself.


RE: or...
By masher2 (blog) on 6/30/2008 6:32:42 AM , Rating: 4
> "but I'd hazard a guess that the southern sea currents are actually shielding antartica from a lot of any warm water going south"

What's shielding Antarctica from the greenhouse effect? Remember that? The extra CO2 in the atmosphere absorbs sunlight, reflects back infrared, and warms the surface?

Stock global warming theory predicts a warming signal at Antarctica some 300% higher than the global average. Instead-- Antarctica is cooling.


RE: or...
By Andy35W on 6/30/08, Rating: -1
RE: or...
By masher2 (blog) on 6/30/2008 7:23:53 AM , Rating: 4
> "... and the Ozone hole in this region means a reduction in that greenhouse gas."

Oops -- but ozone levels over Antarctica have *increased* since the low seen in 1995. And yet Antarctica continues to cool.

> "the Antartic peninsular...has seen a temperature rise more than 10 times the global average"

That peninsula is also directly over a recently discovered active volcano:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/05/04052...


RE: or...
By Andy35W on 6/30/08, Rating: 0
RE: or...
By masher2 (blog) on 6/30/2008 5:34:02 PM , Rating: 3
> "Yeah right, one volcano on a piece of land 800 miles long is warming it up. That's not a very credible argument"

First of all, there are several volcanos on that stretch of land, including the long-known one above ground at the very tip, and the recently-discovered one underwater. There are probably more underwater as well.

As for unlikely arguments, yours is that "sea currents" are somehow shielding the great mass of Antarctica from global warming (meaning they must be themselves cold) yet the very part of Antarctica most exposed to those sea currents is warming very rapidly?

Oops. So much for that argument.


RE: or...
By Andy35W on 7/1/2008 4:08:47 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Oops. So much for that argument.


Once again I quote my link which paints an accurate picture of what the scientists on the ground think

http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/press/journalists/reso...

Why don't you comment on what they say?

Everytime you get some facts that disagrees with your world view from the experts you run away and hide. All this talk about volcanoes when the experts talk about ozone holes and increased southern ocean buffering just makes you look like you are grasping at straws.

And stop saying "Oops" it reaks of not having a valid counter argument, someone who try to win by tone rather than facts.


RE: or...
By xxsk8er101xx on 7/3/2008 8:27:56 PM , Rating: 2
“The positive-feedback mechanism between melt rate and ice velocity appears to be a seasonal process that may have only a limited effect on the response of the ice sheet to climate warming over the next decades,” said the paper.

http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/07/03/a-tem...

This is from the new york times.

Not sure what your argument is but what both articles are saying is that Antarctica is not changing and it's not warming.

There is nothing wrong with saying "oops so much for your argument". i don't know where you got your education from but to me that is just saying "oops so much for your argument" i don't know what you're reading into that.


RE: or...
By Andy35W on 6/30/2008 6:34:48 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Sea currents are a definite contribution to global weather/climate modelling, and they're not well known, but I'd hazard a guess that the southern sea currents are actually shielding antartica from a lot of any warm water going south, whereas in the artic, the gulf stream does go straight up past Norway into the artic sea itself.


Yes I agree, melting does not just depend on sunlight as a cause. I'm surprised he took that tack.


RE: or...
By masher2 (blog) on 6/30/2008 6:44:49 AM , Rating: 2
> "melting does not just depend on sunlight as a cause."

I repeat: Global warming predicts a rate of warming for Antarctica much faster than the rest of the world. It's not happening.

Antarctica is much larger than Europe; parts of it are several thousand kilometers from the ocean. Invoking "sea currents" as some magic mantra doe not explain why the Antarctic interior is cooling. Nor does it explain how sea water -- which itself is supposedly getting warmer, can cool land already 70 or in some cases even 90 degrees below the temperature of the water itself.


RE: or...
By Andy35W on 6/30/2008 6:52:59 AM , Rating: 3
Hey, if you do not believe me then believe the experts!

http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/press/journalists/reso...

Seems reasonable to me.


RE: or...
By xxsk8er101xx on 7/3/2008 8:31:23 PM , Rating: 2
dude did you even read the article. The article is saying it's not warming and there has been no change.

The no change is probably due to the record cooling plus volcanic activity which would normalize the area as "no change"

damn man read your articles.


RE: or...
By FITCamaro on 6/30/2008 8:18:13 AM , Rating: 1
Pfft. You expect us to believe a volcano is responsible for melting ice?

And clearly if these volcanoes have recently become active its because of global warming.


All clear?
By Aloonatic on 6/30/2008 6:00:47 AM , Rating: 1
So if I am not paddling around in the water in my living room at home and all the ice in the North Pole has melted, will an all clear siren be sounded letting people know that everything is OK and I can start to fill in the forms for my tax rebates from Gordon and his cronies in the Labour government to get back what is mine, which was wrongfully (and still is being) stolen in "green" taxes?

You can keep on telling me that the world is going to flood and sea levels will rise but I'm not going to believe you while the seat of government in the UK is on the banks of the Themes and docklands flats still fetch stupid money on the housing market.

When these places are abandoned and there are suddenly a lot of people with Dutch accents wandering around where I live due to Holland being evacuated then I mite start to believe it.

By the way, if the doom mongers say that were all going to drown because the ice caps are melting and one of them actually melts and little happens, what does that say about their claims and where will they go from there?




RE: All clear?
By psychobriggsy on 6/30/2008 7:52:55 AM , Rating: 1
Sea rises won't occur if the artic ice cap melts because it's ice on water, the displacement equalises out.

On the other hand, if all the ice on Greenland were to melt, we would have a far far bigger issue on our hands. The rate of melting on Greenland is increasing by 250% every two or three years [http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/09/06...]. This cold non-salty water affects ocean currents drastically [http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/05/07050...].

quote:
Mark Chandler, a climate researcher at Columbia University, said the fate of the world's ice sheets is "probably the biggest concern that people are looking at right now" in the field of climate prediction.

"There's a lot of fear out there right now, even among scientists, that ice caps are not all that stable," he told MSNBC.com. If the pace of global ice loss accelerates, sea levels might conceivably rise 6 to 16 feet (2 to 5 meters) over the course of a century, which he said would be "devastating."
[http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11385475/]

I think we can all see that 2 metres would be devastating to many low lying land areas. 5 metres would be a major major problem. Greenland's melt might only be contributing 0.5mm a year (well, in 2004) to global sea level rises, but if the rate of melting increases due to warmer air due to no polar sea ice, we could expect that to rise to several mm a year or more.

So do we plan for the hopes of the skeptics, a compromise middle ground, or the worst fears of the doomsayers?


RE: All clear?
By masher2 (blog) on 6/30/2008 8:00:45 AM , Rating: 2
> "The rate of melting on Greenland is increasing by 250% every two or three years "

You've misread your story. What this breathlessly anxious NG journalist actually said was that one reading taken in 2006 was 250% higher than the measurement from two years earlier. It has, however, since declined again:

quote:
Thick pack ice, the like of which has not been seen for decades, stretched into the western fjords as temperatures plummeted and a bitter wind blew in from Greenland.
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/06/05/polar...

The current rate of change for Greenland is 0.25% loss per century. Meaning it will all be gone in roughly 4,000 years.


RE: All clear?
By just4U on 6/30/2008 1:10:23 PM , Rating: 2
Err.. now I am confused. I was under the impression that 700 years ago (or there abouts) Greenland used to be farm land.. Wouldnt that mean it didnt really have that much ice? Why would it take 4000 years to get rid of it all now?


RE: All clear?
By Aloonatic on 6/30/2008 3:03:35 PM , Rating: 2
Err, now I'm confused?

If Greenland was arable farm land only 700 years ago then there couldn't have been much ice on it, which is the point you're making right?

So then the rest of the world must have been underwater?

Or was the ice somewhere else on vacation, perhaps around the tropics at the time?


RE: All clear?
By just4U on 6/30/2008 4:31:37 PM , Rating: 2
huh?

I wasn't trying to make a point .. I was asking something. We know at some point or another greenland was farmed by what??? Vikings or something.. So it wasn't always as it is now.

Now I am unclear on alot of this information and it could be incorrect that's why I was asking..


RE: All clear?
By masher2 (blog) on 6/30/2008 10:54:55 PM , Rating: 2
> "We know at some point or another greenland was farmed by what??? Vikings or something.. "

During the Medieval Climate Optimum, Greenland was indeed warmer than it is today. That doesn't imply the entire continent was ice-free, however; the Greenland ice sheet was still much as it is today.


RE: All clear?
By Aloonatic on 7/1/2008 3:59:54 AM , Rating: 2
No worries, I guess it's just how some comments come over when read. It's hard sometimes on message boards as all tone and inflection is lost.

It seemed like you were making one of those classic environmentalists claims that everything, even something that contradicts what has just been said by another environmentalists only proves the point more.

e.g. Hotter summer proves climate change/colder summer proves climate change even more and if it stays the same as last year, well, that's the clincher.

Or, Greenland is warming we're all doomed/Greenland was warmer and nothing happened.


RE: All clear?
By Aloonatic on 6/30/2008 9:08:34 AM , Rating: 3
So you are at least accepting that the zero net volume gain of floating ice/water displacement is true.

Most environmentalists seem to forget that most of the time.

The real point I was making was that is this is such a done deal why aren't seaside properties being sold off cheap?

I assume land in Holland is worthless?

Just out of interest.

Taking the surface are of the current oceans, and then the areas of land that is 2 meter's above sea level, what volume of water is actually required to produce a global 2 meter level rise?

If we take into account that only ice that is on top of land (as you pointed out, when ice in the sea melts and there is no net gain in volume) how high would the current ice caps have to be in order to hold this volume of water?

I assume that that is where the 2 meter level come from?

I'm not against environmental causes, just poorly founded and argued ones which rely on stupidly edited graphs with only the convenient data included and only certain patterns taken into account, all whilst assuming that just as we have the technology to measure global weather and temperature a few years changes must be catastrophic and caused only by man.

By the way, there's no argument that a big sea level rise of 2 Meters would be a very bad thing.

Also, as a believer, I assume that you only have the most power efficient computer, running a low power graphics card (if you have one at all) and walk/cycle everywhere or use public transport all the time?


By dark matter on 6/30/2008 4:03:52 PM , Rating: 2
I don't usually reply to many posts, but I feel compelled to this time because of Masher2's earler post. It really got my back up. Especially because he likes to tell other people they are wrong so often.

He wrote earlier in the posts;

quote:
We could put every person on the planet in the state of Texas, and there would still be enough space to give every family of four a two-story 10,000 square foot mansion .

Most of the Earth is vast, empty space. Fly over it sometime and look down.


The most number of people you could fit into those mansions is just short of 3 billion.

10,000 sq feet = 0.00035 sq miles.

Area of Texas = 261,797 sq miles.

You can fit 2857 of your mansions in 1 square mile.

Total number of mansions in texas = 747,954,029

4 People in each house = 2,991,816,116

Well short of the estimated 6.7 billion population. And that is not even mentioning the fact that the people in those mansions could not leave the front door as all the mansions have no gap between the next one.

I don't know what books you have been reading either, but you might want to throw them away. most of the Earth is covered in water, either frozen or liquid and not vast empty space. Its that blue stuff you see on maps.

You really have shown yourself up as a fraud Masher2. You cannot do math, and your geography is appalling. Who are you to lecture anyone when you cannot get the basics right?




By Flunk on 6/30/2008 4:38:52 PM , Rating: 2
How about Greenland then? That's about 836,109 square miles.

Assuming all your numbers are correct that gives us space for 2,388,882,857 mansions and with 4 people a piece enough accommodations for 9,555,531,428 people, heck with that amount of extra space we could splurge for some gardens and streets too.

Anyway, I don't really think that the particulars are important. He was just trying to illustrate the point that they earth is very large and people do not occupy a vast majority of it.


By jasond on 6/30/2008 4:44:39 PM , Rating: 2
This is seriously the second most hilarious thing I've ever read and I'm glad it's my first post here. There's nothing more laughable and yet sad and pathetic than someone completely botching a simple arithmetic problem all while they crap on someone else about their own calculations. Masher's original quote was:

quote:
We could put every person on the planet in the state of Texas, and there would still be enough space to give every family of four a two-story 10,000 square foot mansion .


What does that say now? Read the bold part. 10,000 square feet... two stories... let it simmer in your head a moment... Now, I won't assume you know even rudimentary architecture; you may be from some thatched hut village for all I know. So let me introduce you to the concept of "two-story": that's one building floor on top of another. 10,000 square feet, spread across two floors - not side-by-side - but one over the other. So, you see, that would mean the total building footprint of a "two-story 10,000 square foot mansion" is only 5,000 square feet. Now re-do your area calculation and get back to us for a grade.

So, you'd actually have to squeeze an extra 2/3rds of a person into each household but those people can live on the rooftops. :)


By masher2 (blog) on 6/30/2008 7:10:58 PM , Rating: 2
> "the total building footprint of a "two-story 10,000 square foot mansion" is only 5,000 square feet. Now re-do your area calculation "

Actually, I did the calculation with that in mind, which is why I specifically specified two-story construction.

> "This is seriously the second most hilarious thing I've ever read "

Perhaps if you understand the math, you wouldn't laugh quite so hard. Area of Texas: 262K miles^2. Population of Earth: ~6B. Family size: 4, Stories: 2. Do I really need to tell you which to multiply and which to divide?

Now, when you get your foot out of your mouth, you can get back to us.


By jasond on 7/1/2008 12:04:30 AM , Rating: 2
The foot's in the other mouth, pal. Your whole calculation is gimped from the start. See the trick to word problems, and attempting to use math as your weapon in general, is you have to get the facts in order. If you truly did calculate the mansion as 5,000 square feet floor, that would end up being 0.00018 of a square mile. Therefore, you'd have 5,575.68 mansions per square mile. Unless you somehow mindlessly interpreted Masher's words as a two-story mansion of 10,000 square feet per floor with a vacant 10,000 square foot second floor that no one would be allowed to inhabit... Perhaps where you're located, when people are selling their homes, they routinely neglect to mention there's additional footage beyond the ground floor.

Even if Masher was off, it was by about 0.8B people, whereas you with your staggering Potterian intellect ended up 3.8B short.

Run it through again, I'll wait.


By masher2 (blog) on 7/1/2008 10:08:10 AM , Rating: 2
> "Even if Masher was off, it was by about 0.8B people, whereas you with your staggering Potterian intellect ended up 3.8B short...."

Eh? I *am* Masher...did you reply to the wrong post?


By jasond on 7/1/2008 12:14:07 PM , Rating: 2
Let me clear this up once for all. Dark matter posted some really bad math, and I corrected it, backing up your figures. You replied back, for some reason thinking I was attacking your figures when I was in fact attacking Dark matter's, telling me I had my foot in my mouth. I read the post, assumed it was Dark matter from the presumptive, ignorant tone without checking the name, and posted back with the full belief I was once again straightening out Dark matter.

Either way, your figures were still bad, Dark matter's math was even worse and in the end I'm right. :) To be fair, my calculation to support your figures was even slightly off by 156.6M in population because I used the wrong area for Texas (total area instead of total land area).

http://www.census.gov/main/www/popclock.html - 6.71B people.
http://www.ibiblio.org/lunarbin/worldpop - 6.82B people.

Your result: 5.84B. So that's a 0.87B to 0.98B discrepancy in population, which doesn't get any better even when you round up using your bogus population figure. So, realistically, it would have been more accurate to state the world's population as 7.0B and that would've avoided at least some of the mess.


By Jim28 on 6/30/2008 9:32:33 PM , Rating: 2
You know before you stick your foot in your mouth look at your own math. (I really couldn't resist this one!)

He said TWO story 10,000 sq foot home, by your rough calcs that would be approx. 6 Billion people as the actual sq foot required for that house as it has TWO floors is 5,000sq ft.
True he doesn't account for the .7 billion but you are off a lot further than he!


I can hear the kids already
By EndPCNoise on 6/30/2008 1:02:12 AM , Rating: 4
" But what about Santa's home? "




By AnnihilatorX on 6/30/2008 4:09:27 AM , Rating: 3
Oh Dear, Santa had to move because all your burning candles in Christmas and on your birthday cakes melted away all the ice.


RE: I can hear the kids already
By JonnyDough on 6/30/2008 6:01:34 AM , Rating: 1
Santa's wife will be playing the wicked witch in this years senior production of "The Wizard of Oz."

The best known line for her character will be the famous
"It's melting, it's meellllting!"


Coming soon:
By Sunrise089 on 6/30/2008 12:24:25 AM , Rating: 5
Masher's response in 3..2..1..




Here's a more reasonable explanation:
By ricleo2 on 7/2/2008 12:34:57 PM , Rating: 1
By jbartabas on 7/2/2008 4:04:35 PM , Rating: 2
From your source:

quote:
With news this week that polar ice is melting dramatically, underwater Arctic pyrotechnics might seem like a logical smoking gun. Scientists don't see any significant connection, however.


By xxsk8er101xx on 7/3/2008 8:39:55 PM , Rating: 2
this is faux news alert!

we don't report real news! This is why we're number one! We just entertain people!

faux news alert!

Girls gone wild girls have lost their bikinis!
------
seriously don't believe anything foxnews says.


keywords
By Screwballl on 6/30/2008 12:07:16 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
For First Time in Recorded History


Those are the key words.. the earth goes through normal heating and cooling on its own without mans help...
I am sure at many times in the history of this planet even Antarctica has completely melted.

Al this without the help of man.

So much for "man-made global warming"




RE: keywords
By Flunk on 6/30/2008 4:41:28 PM , Rating: 2
Yup.

We've only really been monitoring this for just over 100 years so "recorded history" in this case is really not geologically relevant. This sort of thing occurs on a geological timescale and on that type of scale 100 years is a blink.


NO Global Warming
By bigjohnhg on 7/1/2008 6:49:50 PM , Rating: 2
31,000 Scientists Shatter the Myth of a “Scientific Consensus” on Global Warming
Environmental extremists routinely assert a “scientific consensus” that global warming is occurring, and that human activity somehow causes it. This week, however, over 31,000 scientists spoke up and reduced that myth to a smoldering rubble.
The environmentalists’ alleged “scientific consensus” is much like the curtain in The Wizard of Oz, behind which the supposedly infallible wizard dictated to his minions. Beyond that curtain, however, the wizard was nothing more than an ordinary little man perpetrating a fraud upon those who worshipped his doctrine. And once Toto removed that curtain, the fraud was exposed for all to see.
Similarly, environmentalists’ mythical “scientific consensus” has served as a shroud behind which they have sought to maintain an air of infallibility. By falsely claiming a closed consensus and excoriating anyone who speaks out against their flawed orthodoxy, environmental extremists seek to prevent any objective, scientific debate that might inhibit their political agenda.
That shroud, however, was further torn this week by a 31,000-strong petition organized by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (OISM). According to the OISM’s board of scientists, “a review of the research literature concerning the environmental consequences of increased levels of carbon dioxide leads to the conclusion that increases during the 20th Century have produced no deleterious effects upon global weather, climate, or temperature.”
To the contrary, the OISM notes that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide have actually increased plant growth rates, among other positive effects. On this basis, the OISM concludes that “predictions of harmful climatic effects due to future increases in minor greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide are in error and do not conform to current experimental knowledge.”
Accordingly, the straightforward petition reads:
We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.
There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing, or will in the foreseeable future cause, catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.
The petition itself appears alongside a letter from the late Frederick Seitz, a former President of the National Academy of Sciences. Dr. Seitz stated that “the United States is very close to adopting an international agreement that would ration the use of energy and technologies that depend upon coal, oil, natural gas and some other organic compounds.” He therefore warned that, “this treaty is, in our opinion, based upon flawed ideas. Research into data on climate change does not show that human use of hydrocarbons is harmful. To the contrary, there is good evidence that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide is environmentally helpful.”
It should be noted that the OISM’s petition effort receives absolutely no funding from the energy industry, or from anyone else with a financial interest in the ongoing climate change debate. Rather, its funding derives entirely from private, non-tax-deductible contributions from individual donors.
Global warming alarmists will nevertheless exclaim, like the “wizard” in The Wizard of Oz, “pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!” Their agenda simply cannot tolerate dissent, contrary evidence, or objective discussion of the matter. Instead, they cling to the claim of a false consensus, and liken any objective disagreement to flat-earth proponents. According to Al Gore, for instance, “there is as strong a consensus on this issue as science has ever had.”
Oh? Is it as strong as the supposed consensus when Newsweek announced on November 23, 1992 that “the advent of a new ice age, scientists say, appears to be guaranteed,” and that “the devastation will be astonishing?”
Gore’s comment is obviously absurd on its face. A scientific consensus does exist in well-settled scientific subjects, such as the laws of gravity or physics. But this is certainly not the case when it comes to climate change.
We can thank the OISM, its leadership and its 31,000 participating scientists for helping shatter the environmentalists’ myth.




RE: NO Global Warming
By jbartabas on 7/1/2008 7:13:31 PM , Rating: 2
A simple link to the text (with the title and maybe a short summary) would have worked too ;-) .


Update on this years Icemelt
By Andy35W on 7/8/2008 12:34:03 PM , Rating: 2
Maybe nobody is reading this anymore considering we have new blogs from Michael and Jason but it looks like it will be very hard for a record year this year, never mind extensive water up to the pole

http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_im...

It seems to be following the normal curve so showing last year was "freaskish". However there is still time for a big reduction if the estimate of mainly young ice being left and a "heatwave" hit.

Not looking promising for the predictions of this article though.

Not quite as sexy, but it will be interesting to note how much or less the maximum is this year ( or rather 2009 as that is when maxima occurs).




RE: Update on this years Icemelt
By DPercy on 7/9/2008 4:53:43 AM , Rating: 2
Agreed. Your graph matches with what I have visually observered.

-Dave Percy


By SerafinaEva on 7/1/2008 1:23:16 AM , Rating: 3
Masher and his followers are actually George Bush with multiple nicknames, disguised coming on his to spout of his nonsense.

I mean he's not running the country, what better way to waste time then come on here and troll?




Bye Polar Bears
By JonnyDough on 6/30/2008 1:27:33 AM , Rating: 1
It was nice knowing you.




RE: Bye Polar Bears
By andrinoaa on 6/30/08, Rating: 0
RE: Bye Polar Bears
By JonnyDough on 6/30/08, Rating: -1
RE: Bye Polar Bears
By just4U on 6/30/2008 1:34:50 PM , Rating: 2
You only have to look at the trends and you will see that there is no conspiracy in the +/- ratings. People respond in a positive way to well thought out and informed posts and tend to take a negative stance on replies with little credibilty that are wildly speculative..

Not quite sure how you can't notice that as it's fairly obvious...


By GeorgeR on 6/30/2008 9:26:18 PM , Rating: 2
This was written in 1817 and refers to the previous year which was 1816, the year without a summer.

"It will without doubt have come to your Lordship's knowledge that a considerable change of climate, inexplicable at present to us, must have taken place in the Circumpolar Regions, by which the severity of the cold that has for centuries past enclosed the seas in the high northern latitudes in an impenetrable barrier of ice has been during the last two years, greatly abated.

(This) affords ample proof that new sources of warmth have been opened and give us leave to hope that the Arctic Seas may at this time be more accessible than they have been for centuries past, and that discoveries may now be made in them not only interesting to the advancement of science but also to the future intercourse of mankind and the commerce of distant nations."
President of the Royal Society, London, to the Admiralty, 20th November 1817




By rsmech on 7/1/2008 10:37:20 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
While some remain critical that global warming is occurring at all, the melting of the North Pole represents a sharp indicator against voices of doubt.


This is why it's like banging your head against the wall when talking about global warming. I am skeptical of some of the research, but that is a side issue. Supporters can only grasp on to debatable models & studies that it is happening. (debatable by both sides.) They can never convince me that it is mostly attributable to man. GW supporters CANNOT dispute that the Earth has been warmer & cooler in the past, so what's to stop it from doing the SAME THING now. History is a brick wall they can't pass through. So it's getting warmer maybe if you weren't so emotionally involved you could rationally look at it and ask yourself. "How does this relate to past trends of the planet?" You cannot. You are stuck on being the saviors of the world. Self-righteousness. You are so stuck on feeling good about yourselves at the possible expense of others it's frightening. Don't tell me about doing nothing may be worse, repeating history & not seeing the wisdom & knowledge to be gained from it is disastrous. I will not tell you that it is not possible the Earth is getting warmer, I will not tell you it is not possible it could get cooler. History has already told me it can.

The Earth can balance itself from volcanoes, I think it can handle a little of man.

Don't tell me we should conserve, I believe it already. But to try & argue that or any other points is not the issue, history is. So now that I am done please misdirect the issue some more. Tell me all about the intellect of science over the wisdom of history. (the intellect of man forever shifts as the wind but wisdom is forever solid as a rock.)




2008 ice melt is behind 2007
By DPercy on 7/6/2008 8:06:12 PM , Rating: 2
Up to July 5th there is much more ice along the Russian coast than July 2007. There is still a big chuck of ice in Hudson Bay, last year at this time the bay was nearly ice free. Also, It was never proven the Northwest Passage opened up in 2007. No one went through it. Just a lot of "could be", "might be", "wouldnt it be cool if" talk.

One area of the arctic with less ice than last year is in the Mckenzie Bay area. This is due to persistant southeast wind flow since March. That same pattern brought the coldest Bering Sea spring since 1971. I have been on the fence but now I am leaning toward less melting in the Arctic than 2007. Anyone want to make a wager? Come on, spend some of that Al Gore grant and/or carbon money.

-Dave Percy




A link to other climate studies
By DPercy on 7/10/2008 3:56:09 PM , Rating: 2
For those of you going crazy and or pulling your hair out.

http://icecap.us/




So...
By yacoub on 6/30/2008 9:22:56 AM , Rating: 1
Recorded history, eh? More like "since we've had satellites" or maybe slightly longer - "since we've had people at the north pole throughout the arctic summer". Because for all we know it has melted before (and refrozen).




By Soccerman06 on 6/30/2008 2:02:37 AM , Rating: 3
You sir remind me of the South Park "Smug" folk in San Fransisco.

http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/104282 for the uneducated.


By smitty3268 on 6/30/2008 2:25:46 AM , Rating: 2
Oh dear. Did you seriously just compare yourself to Albert Einstein.

You're one of those people who make even those who agree with you want to start burning fossil fuel out of spite.


By Connoisseur on 6/30/2008 2:47:24 AM , Rating: 2
HA HA HA HA HA... ::catches breath::.... HA HA HA HA HA. You seriously did compare yourself to einstein didn't you? My goodness. Sir, you're no great man. Plenty of other more famous/wealthy people have made the same predictions and they get more publicity.


By CloudFire on 6/30/2008 3:10:38 AM , Rating: 2
i don't think he's comparing himself to einstein. i think what he was trying to say is that, he came to a realization of an idea that he thinks is true and relevant and he feel empowered to share his views with us, given that some will agree or reject his view, but that is how new great ideas are started. new ideas are opposed saying it'll never happen by skeptics.....but tell me, what has skepticism has ever done for us? do the skeptics go out and change the world or do they sit on their a** and say ..."oh no, that can't possibly happen, i know this topic of area well enough and i'm sure im right, because i'm smart". and that is why i hate skeptics...flame me on, but they will never change the world as much as those few who has great ideas and realizations and ACTUALLY DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT.

i honestly agree with what he is saying, EVEN if global warming (climate change) is not real for any reason, recycling and keeping our planet hospitable for the FUTURE GENERATIONS is NOT a bad idea. good game. you skeptics can die. :) good day


By Ringold on 6/30/2008 4:49:10 AM , Rating: 2
What have skeptics ever done? Skeptics pointed out ethanol in America was a sham, and tried to inform the government that, best-case scenario, it might be an economic wash while still being on questionable moral ground.

Skeptics have recently won out, but not before plenty of harm was done. Moving forward, there seems to be no real political will to reverse policies.. never mind that virtually all are in agreement that it should be. Can't offend the farmers!

Skeptics serve a decent role in society. They're the ones that say "Wait a second, lets think this through" before charging off wildly in to the night. Both parties, clearly, have failed to do such thinking. According to the OP, such thinking on environmentalism may well be a thought-crime.


By JonnyDough on 6/30/2008 5:35:30 AM , Rating: 1
I never said that we shouldn't deliberate. I've repeated again and again that we need to listen to scientists who have studied the ice caps for decades now. They are urging us to change our lifestyles. Some on here would argue that we should not downgrade them. CHANGE does not equal DOWNGRADE. CHANGE means UPGRADE, not only for us but for future generations. In fact, I'm arguing that we BEGIN to use our minds. In the past, they charged ahead thinking little of the environment. We have fought in wars against each other for as long as mankind has existed. It is a TIME FOR THOUGHT, for ONCE! What I am saying is that the facts are staring us in the face. What I am saying is that we HAVE ruined our earth, whether we cause global climate change is not even the issue. The point is that we are NOT environmentally friendly. We are NOT thinking, and mankind, despite his greatness in technology and philosophy has NEVER REALLY THOUGHT. Men like Socrates and Plato studied human beings. They discussed what it was to be human. As such, they realized that man is highly fallible. We are such great planners that so frequently we fail to plan. In other words, we invented steel and mining, and we planned roadways and automobile designs...yet we failed to plan for the environmental impact. We planned a railway system, yet we failed to plan for faster, lighter trains that could transport people from the east to west coast in a matter of hours. Had the original designers foreseen better trains, AND had the proper backing, then they may have perhaps taken the extra time and money to build a straight railroad, instead of one that curved around mountains. HAD they truly planned, then we would be reaping the benefits of it today.

The moral of my little story here is that we need to organize ourselves better. We need to begin to plan ahead as a society, and not as individuals. Think GREATER. Einstein was a great thinker. There is no doubt. But if you take Einstein, add to him all of us, and then think into the future as he sometimes did...we could build and invent things beyond what he could ever imagine capable.

But it all starts with a belief. We believe that we can invent and create, but do we believe that we can change the course of history and do we believe that we could do it as a society? Even China is leaving us in the dust. The great wall of China was not built in a day. If anything massive and admirable is to be done, it will take generations of people, not just ours. It will take massive planning on a larger scale than just innovating something new and small, like hybrid cars. We need to reinvent travel, not tweak it. It CAN be done, and SHOULD be done. If you want to leave a mark in history then do as the original pioneers of the railroad did. Do something NEW. Despite the lack of future foresight for a straight path from east to west, the railroad still changed the course of history here in the U.S. If it had been built straighter, it would probably be used more today.

This applies to global warming in that we CAN change how we live every day. We need a MASSIVE recycling program. Not spots here and there in select towns and cities. We need to construct a computerized maglev monorail system that runs on clean energy. We need some social reform, because our political system DOES NOT THINK BIG. Our American government supports change. But it does so on a very small, slow, and revolves around elected officials terms. We need LONG term plans. Not short term fixes. The government here does not usually take big risks. For the most part, Bush is a horrible president (in my opinion), but on a few things his administration actually looks down the road past his time in office.

/end rant, for now

Support or no support I still feel compelled to share my opinion. Take it as you wish.


By masher2 (blog) on 6/30/2008 6:11:05 AM , Rating: 5
> "Even China is leaving us in the dust"

Of course. We've created so many environmental and legal regulations that running a factory that actually produces anything is nearly impossible. We've stopped building new power plants and oil refineries, and even something as simple as a new bridge requires millions of dollars of "environment impact assessments". Do you really believe all those poor decisions don't have an impact?

Meanwhile, China is building one new power plant a week, and expanding its heavy industry at a torrid pace. They have an air pollution problem now-- but once their dozens of new nuclear plants come online, that will be solved, and their economy will be by then the largest in the world by far.


By FITCamaro on 6/30/2008 6:32:15 AM , Rating: 2
Well just think masher though. All those "environmental impact assessments" mean jobs. SO its a good thing!

/sarcasm


By zsdersw on 6/30/2008 7:15:45 AM , Rating: 2
China's air pollution problem isn't merely a function of its power generation.


By FITCamaro on 6/30/2008 6:20:39 AM , Rating: 3
Yes they've studied the ice caps for decades now and what do they know?

1) It's cold up there.
2) Ice freezes in the winter.
3) Ice melts in the summer.

They know nothing more about the history of our planet and how our environment truly works or the cycles it goes through any more than they did in the 70s.

Fact is that the same people who are crying man-made global warming today are the ones who 50 years ago were crying man-made global cooling. So what does that tell me, a logical person who uses common sense to deduce people's intentions? That they reverse their stance whenever they realize they can't sell shit to the public anymore? No....couldn't possibly mean that.....

Now I mean though, you're 28 so of course you have all the answers. You've been studying global warming since you were 6 so you must be a genius.

I have no issue with conservation. I have no issue with using clean power(moreso than many environmentalists since I favor nuclear power which efficiently uses the space of our world unlike solar or wind). I DO have an issue with affecting the global economy to try and sell an idea that:

a) they have no real evidence that their theory is true other than that temperatures were higher for a few years.
b) can be disproven with other data
c) has already reversed its opinion once when the data suited them differently

So if the world starts cooling off by 2050 like some scientists predict due to decreased solar activity, are you guys going to shut up or just switch opinions again and start preaching global cooling again?


By BiuTech on 6/30/2008 2:57:39 AM , Rating: 5
This type of rational is part of what's causing us to burn our own food supply. You are sure 'hearing' a lot of things lately but what about the evidence. I 'hear' things all the time too, especially from the media, but I just don't accept it on a whim.

The solution to the problem has three steps.

1. Education.
2. Population control.
3. Recycling programs.
4. Governmental enforcement.
5. Personal responsibility.


Ehm, 1..2..3..uh..4..5. I count 5 steps. I guess if you take out the social, communist garbage of population control and government enforcement then that makes three.
I could go on but I gotta get on with more important things - burning stuff in my backyard, making babies, so on...


By JonnyDough on 6/30/2008 5:44:05 AM , Rating: 1
I forgot to change the number of steps as I added them. They were ideas off the top of my head, which is more than what I can say for what you just posted. Rather than get into a pissing contest with you though, I think I'll just ignore you since you didn't have any solid ideas, only smart-alec rhetoric. Next time you post, perhaps you should try doing some THINKING and then contribute something of value instead of just slanderous fud.


By FITCamaro on 6/30/2008 8:12:52 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
Next time you post, perhaps you should try doing some THINKING and then contribute something of value instead of just slanderous fud.


Hello pot. My names kettle.


By B on 6/30/2008 11:27:01 AM , Rating: 2
Slander is an untruthful oral (spoken) statement about a person that harms the person's reputation or standing in the community.

I fail to read any untruthful statements about a PERSON in BiuTech's response to you, so perhaps its FUD but slanderous FUD?

Also, Wouldn't it be libelous FUD because of it was written instead of being orally spoken?


By Jim28 on 6/30/2008 9:47:03 PM , Rating: 2
Keep going! You are showing the world how dumb an idiot looks! It is reall funny. Cannon fodder to the battle ya know.


By BiuTech on 7/1/2008 3:26:06 AM , Rating: 2
Excuse my sarcasm previously, but I won't deny I was intentionally being a smart-alec. Your own post was libel against yourself. Buddy, stop for a second, this is your "THINKING"?? -

quote:
Quit spreading anti-global warming "ideas" and start believing in it. This crap is REAL, anyone opposed is an enemy of humanity. War is now inevitable. Welcome to the apocalypse. You're either for us, or against us.


How radical is that? War is inevitable? It's difficult for people to take someone serious with this sort of thinking. The hubris is not only laughable but insulting.
I'm all for conservation and clean energy. Alternative energy technologies are really what is inevitable. So just because I do not accept Al Gore's global warming and the so called "consensus" does not make me an enemy to humanity. Let's simply agree to disagree. If that's too difficult then you have my pity.

As for the Polar Bears, the suggested population decline is merely a prediction based on models. Population levels have actually been increasing, and their correlation with climate change is fallacious. Two references out of many:

http://www.polarbearsinternational.org/ask-the-exp...
http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/essay_schliebe.html


By Ringold on 6/30/2008 4:36:38 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
That was 15 or 16 years ago. I still have the paper I wrote. I am now 28 years old, and am hearing daily news about ice caps melting for the first time in thousands and thousands of years.


Funny. If you were just a little older, if I'm not mistaken, then in 6th grade you'd of wrote instead about global cooling.

quote:
I am hearing that the polar bear may soon be extinct.


Somebody needs to shoot a few, then cook them differently, and see if they taste good. If so, perhaps commercial ranches, such as those that saved the bison from extinction, would be a decent option. Otherwise, frankly, human > all, so I don't care.

quote:
and now we're using our food as fuel,


It was a lame idea from the very start, economists asked uncomfortable questions from the start, but nobody ever lets economic reality stop a policy option. Again, economists point out that the more popular plans endorsed by Gore, the Stern Review, and others incur more costs than they deliver benefits, based on environmentalists own data. Again, only muffled responses. If we go down the drastic CO2 reduction path and discover people like Nordhaus were correct, don't be surprised.

quote:
Troubled times are upon us people.


Fact: There are far fewer people living in absolute poverty today than in.. well, at least the previous several decades. If everybody lived jolly good lives in 1000 BC I don't know, but if by China recently reducing poverty by 407m from 1990 to 2004 and America in a sorta-kinda non-recessionary recession is what you call "troubled times," well, it's obvious you're 28 and haven't looked at history. "Troubled times" hasn't existed in your lifetime. Not in North America or Western Europe, and everywhere else has steadily improved over the course of your lifetime -- except some hellholes in Africa.

quote:
2. Population control.


Hmm. Higher standard of living enjoyed basically by all.. and you want population controls, based on no evidence the current situation is causing a Malthusian resource shortage.

I'll merely point out that the primary driver of food prices has been this fuel-for-food blood trade. In liberal parts of the world, population is already flat, and in Japan, it's shrinking. That actually poses huge fiscal problems; intergenerational wealth transfer schemes collapse fairly rapidly when the elderly outnumber the young.

quote:
This crap is REAL, anyone opposed is an enemy of humanity. War is now inevitable. Welcome to the apocalypse. You're either for us, or against us.


This, ladies in gentleman, is how hate crimes start, and how ethnic cleansing can start, particularly if allowed to fester during a time of collapsing cohesion within society.

To potential future members of roaming murdering liberal thug gangs: I have a 12-gauge, 16-gauge, .45, 9mm, plenty of ammo to go around, and would be perfectly willing and able to deploy all in defense of home, family, and neighbors. (That said, if people like JonnyDough start calling the shots, with a heavy patriotic heart I would, for the good of family, already be elsewhere)

quote:
But then, so is any great man of realization. Just look at Einstein if you need an example.


Hmm.. Lets see. Forced re-education of something that doesn't really have 100% scientific consensus (why dont we force string theory while we're at it), forced population control, a hint of potentially brutal suppression of political opponents, and whatever you have in mind by "personal responsibility." I believe a more apt comparison might just be Stalin. If that's not a modern enough example for you, Mugabe from Zimbabwe also fits the bill pretty well. He's doing a fantastic job keeping carbon emissions down!


By psychobriggsy on 6/30/2008 4:46:04 AM , Rating: 2
Global cooling came from Russian scientists in the 70s, who had studied Russian climate changes and extrapolated, incorrectly. Indeed parts of Russia could still cool during a global warmup. That's why many people call it global climate change, it doesn't imply that the temperature will rise evenly. Indeed I believe that temperatures will rise the most in the tropics, warm slightly up to the temperate zones, and get colder elsewhere due to ocean current changes and the like.

In addition, we all know that the computing power in the 70s really wasn't up to much, so with the billions upon billions more computer power available now, the models have evolved, have actually gone global now, and are probably quite reasonable.

His post was quite reasonable (but the DailyTech anti-science crowd modded him down). A little preachy maybe however. As far as I am concerned even if global warming eventually didn't happen, unlikely as it is, cutting pollution levels will result in cleaner air and healthier people, and that's a win all round.


By Ringold on 6/30/2008 5:11:26 AM , Rating: 2
I don't know where it came from, but it wasn't a concern localized to Russia, as you can look through archives and see front-page newspaper headlines from the era talking about the potential coming ice age apocalypse.

quote:
n addition, we all know that the computing power in the 70s really wasn't up to much


I've been told we managed to land on the Moon. :)

quote:
cutting pollution levels will result in cleaner air and healthier people, and that's a win all round.


I am all for cutting pollution! Unfortunately, CO2 only counts as pollution due to its supposed effect on global temperatures. If not for that, it's something of a fertilizer. As for real pollution, of the sort that comes out of coal power plants.. I <3 nuclear. Greenpeace, WWF, Friends of the Earth and pretty much all major environmentalist groups have no love for nuclear, though. Hm.


By masher2 (blog) on 6/30/2008 6:22:01 AM , Rating: 2
> "Global cooling came from Russian scientists in the 70s, who had studied Russian climate changes and extrapolated, incorrectly"

No. The first global cooling climate models came in 1970, from a NASA/Columbia University joint venture, led by S.I. Rasool. That venture later became GISS (Goddard Instite), the very group led by James Hansen that is now the strongest advocate for global warming.

> "with the billions upon billions more computer power available now, the models have evolved, have actually gone global now, and are probably quite reasonable."

Eh? Current GCM (global climate models) are still wholly unable to explain any of the past known climate changes in history, and their future predictions have uniformly been incorrect.

When one actually works on a GCM, its easy to see why. We still lack the computing power to model many hugely important effects, such as the full water cycle and the impact of clouds, or to use grid sizes smaller than several thousand cubic miles. In another 25-30 years, we might have the computing power for an accurate GCM, but for now, GCMs are valuable only for their ability to teach climatologists what they still don't understand.


By zsdersw on 6/30/2008 7:26:21 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Otherwise, frankly, human > all, so I don't care.


That is a demonstration of the same naivety that you rightly accuse global warming alarmists of having.

Our planet is a very complex system (obviously) of lifeforms and environments, our understanding of and dominion over which is quite inferior.


By JonnyDough on 6/30/2008 6:27:22 AM , Rating: 1
Interesting. I was on food stamps as a kid, and our nation has spent billions and billions on occupying parts of the gulf for about a decade total. I know people struggling to find jobs now and gas prices are on the rise, something which we all need to survive. Strange that you should say that.

You also fail to mention WHY populations are dropping in parts of the world. AIDS, POLITICAL and SOCIAL UNREST, EDUCATION, LACK OF FISHING WATERS couldn't have anything to do with that could it?

You talk about population as if we don't have more people on earth than ever. You talk about it as if our earth can CONTINUE to sustain the increase in population for a million years to come. Did it ever occur to you that our farmlands are being over-used? That there are side effects to clearing all of our land for housing and farming? It seems you have failed to address this. You seem to think that for every one person, they only require a bit of room. But the fact is that every person requires a bit of roadway, a bit of farmland, a bit of sewage area, a bit of strip mined land for the fuels they burn, a bit of ocean for the fish they consume and the oil they drill...the list goes on. We are all being SUPPORTED by this earth, each of us takes up MILES, not just our tiny homes. While this earth MAY be able to support BILLIONS of people, those people will not have the quality of life that they COULD have, and there is simply no reason for that if we are just responsible. Nature has checks and balances. Too many of one kind of creature leads to famine and disease. Do not think for a moment that we are not a part of nature. Nature birthed us.

quote:
This, ladies in gentleman, is how hate crimes start, and how ethnic cleansing can start, particularly if allowed to fester during a time of collapsing cohesion within society.


That was precisely my point. When problems arise we get a clashing of ideas. Those that want change, and those that don't want it. Unfortunately for those that don't want it, in time it will come regardless. You're brilliant for understanding it. Really. You can have your list of guns, but it won't do anything against the multitudes that will come flooding into your home to steal your food because they have none, and it won't do crap against all of your neighbors who demand that you stop polluting because it's affecting their lives downstream.

You people act as though the fun 90's American life will continue on forever. Even if our lifetime sees little change, eventually the human populace will grow too great for this world to support it all and it will crumble. In the event of this happening (pray it isn't during our lifetimes) there WILL be social unrest and then hell breaks loose.

Remember the LA Riots? That was nothing compared to millions of people demanding that you let them sleep on your property because their home was flooded out by a rising tide.

I am not so naive that I don't think that we couldn't be facing world war 3 any day...and that life as we know it will be over and I could be drafted and sent off to some foreign land to die. The world hasn't changed THAT much in my lifetime. :-)


By Ringold on 6/30/2008 10:05:48 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I was on food stamps as a kid


When you were a young kid, the early Reagan years, Paul Volcker was battling inflation that Carter and Miller had allowed to fester, so your family may have been paying the price for the Carter years, but that still doesn't equate to "troubled times," particularly when most of the nation was managing to get along fine. There will always be someone, somewhere, falling behind.

quote:
I know people struggling to find jobs now and gas prices are on the rise, something which we all need to survive. Strange that you should say that.


I know a couple people with such difficulties, but they're lazy and have no education beyond a high school diploma. Last years college grads enjoyed the most brisk recruiting season in living memory according to universities, and I hear through the grape vine that business degree majors have had no great difficultly finding work after their May graduation. Engineers never have any problem, business cycle be damned, due to chronic skill shortages. I have, however, heard that education majors have had a tough time finding work, especially here in Florida. Education majors attract some of the lowest SAT scoring students, so go figure.

Beyond that, it would only be strange that I should say the pervailing economic condition doesn't qualify as "troubled times" if you weren't looking at actual economic data and listened to the evening news. They were calling for a catastrophic first quarter back in December; Q1 actually slid across the finish line with growth. Q2 probably has done much the same.

"Troubled times," or a real recession, would see 250k or more monthly job losses month after month for a good chunk of a year, with people remaining unemployed for long stretches of time. Thats at least what a post-WW2 recession tends to look like, which doesn't at all compare to the swings in the business cycle experienced throughout US history leading up to WW2. That said, we don't have a god-given right to perpetually improving standards of living, and recessions are normal transitory events.

quote:
AIDS, POLITICAL and SOCIAL UNREST, EDUCATION, LACK OF FISHING WATERS couldn't have anything to do with that could it?


Ah. Thanks for pointing out again you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Populations are not falling in those places. Ethiopia has all of the above ills, including a likely potential famine later this year if they can't turn their battered crops around, but its population is still growing and is expected to double by 2050.

I said liberal countries are experiencing population decline, and by liberal in this case I also meant advanced. Japan has no HIV problem, political or social unrest, certainly no lack of education and I'm pretty damn sure they get their sushi. Population decline occurs due to low birth rates because, among many reasons, women now choose careers over having kids.

In other words, you spoke the exact opposite of reality. Good job.

quote:
That there are side effects to clearing all of our land for housing and farming?


Google Thomas Malthus. People like you have been worshiping his medieval economic theory ever since, predicted that the Earth can't sustain many more people at any higher standard of living. China is collectively telling you that you are wrong with their economic resilience, which has not hindered America or the US by any significant degree.

quote:
nd that life as we know it will be over and I could be drafted and sent off to some foreign land to die. The world hasn't changed THAT much in my lifetime.


In terms of economics, it has. Prosperity has boomed since you were born. Which is another reason your doomsday scenario makes no sense, as nothing in recent years suggests at all an end to growth. Global GDP growth, in real terms (inflation adjusted), I think it supposed to be 5% this year, no thanks at all to weak US and Eurozone economies. That growth is almost all from the developed world, defying your dower prognosis and working to join our level of prosperity.

I'll say it again; you rail against masher for not listening to your favorite scientists, and then make all types of predictions about future economic catastrophe that no one in mainstream economics predicts. You repeat an intellectually bankrupt mantra that hasn't been correct since the Industrial Revolution (Malthus's model correctly describes the dark ages).


By Jim28 on 6/30/2008 9:56:48 PM , Rating: 2
You know I always think that anyone who advocates population control, especially enforced popluation control, should be introduced to it themselves.

You know he says he is 28, and I am only slightly older at 32. Where is he getting all of this stupdidity and hatred for his fellow man? He most likely has never faced a hardship, proabably has never gotten laid! Most certainly, has not accomplished anything of value for the world.

I know so many people in their early twenties up to 35 and none of them talk like this idiot. I would say none think like him, but the only thinking I can detect is smoke burning between his ears.


By Reclaimer77 on 6/30/2008 5:30:00 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
2. Population control.


I agree. Lets start with you first.


By JonnyDough on 6/30/2008 5:41:10 AM , Rating: 2
Population control means realizing that we are more and more stacked on top of each other as the population increases. It isn't communist to begin educational programs that will decrease the numbers of babies people have. It's well known that education leads to fewer babies. It is primarily the uneducated and impoverished who are having a lot of kids. They are unable to take care of them and then they become the rich and educated's problems. I'm not talking about becoming old China and killing people. YOU are the ones who are extremist because that is what your mind jumps straight to. Please people, let's cut the childish crap (that means YOU Reclaimer with your childish remarks) and begin to realize that we could all have an estate, instead of a tiny crap apartment. Otherwise we're going to end up like Hong Kong where each family gets an apartment to live in the size of my living room. I want better for my kid's kids. If you don't, then maybe we should start with YOU.


By masher2 (blog) on 6/30/2008 6:26:33 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
> "Population control means realizing that we are more and more stacked on top of each other as the population increases...Otherwise we're going to end up like Hong Kong where each family gets an apartment to live in the size of my living room"


We could put every person on the planet in the state of Texas, and there would still be enough space to give every family of four a two-story 10,000 square foot mansion .

Most of the Earth is vast, empty space. Fly over it sometime and look down.


By masher2 (blog) on 6/30/2008 6:38:49 AM , Rating: 3
> "Is it so wrong of me to want a high quality life for all people? "

If you truly want a high standard of living, you should be doing all in your power to oppose the alarmist idiocy of the global warming movement. Our standard of living is defined by our access to cheap, abundant energy and the benefits of industrialized society...both things the GW crowd wishes to take away from us.


By Jim28 on 6/30/2008 10:13:36 PM , Rating: 3
That is the thing he doesn't.

I don't think life has been that good to him, and he has not done anything himself to make it better so he is blaming everyone for his life choices. Why do I think this?
His thoughts are not rational, his writing is not logical, and he picks topics from all up and down the extreme left's talking points, and then to spice it up he kinda brings them up randomly. Arguing with my two year old son is more rewarding as my two year old is already smarter than this waste of space.


By andrinoaa on 7/1/2008 5:16:11 AM , Rating: 1
The problem with a finite resource is that for some to be rich, others must be poor. You guys have been gluttons for too long, time to join the que. $10/gal anyone? lol
Masher2, you could be a candidate for "depopulation" lol


By dark matter on 6/30/2008 4:00:02 PM , Rating: 1
Dude, where did you go to school?

The most number of people you could fit into those mansions is just short of 3 billion.

10,000 sq feet = 0.00035 sq miles.

Area of Texas = 261,797 sq miles.

You can fit 2857 of your mansions in 1 square mile.

Total number of mansions in texas = 747,954,029

4 People in each house = 2,991,816,116

Well short of the estimated 6.7 billion population. And that is not even mentioning the fact that the people in those mansions could not leave the front door as all the mansions have no gap between the next one.

I don't know what books you have been reading either, but you might want to throw them away. most of the Earth is covered in water, either frozen or liquid and not vast empty space. Its that funny blue colour you see on globes of the Earth.

You really have shown yourself up as a fraud Masher2. You cannot do math, and your geography is appalling. Who are you to lecture anyone when you cannot even get the basics right?


By jasond on 6/30/2008 5:09:00 PM , Rating: 2
Refer to the following link since you like to double-post.

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=12218...


By masher2 (blog) on 6/30/2008 7:16:14 PM , Rating: 2
> "Dude, where did you go to school? The most number of people you could fit into those mansions is just short of 3 billion."

Where did YOU go to school? You forgot to divide by two (two-story construction), which brings the figure to exactly six billion.

I confess I rounded down the world population to six billion. If you want to use the exact figure, the square footage is ~10% lower. Still, a massive mansion for everyone on Earth...and that's with all of Asia, Africa, Europe, Antarctica, South America, and nearly all of North America wholly unpopulated.


By HueyD on 6/30/2008 9:28:13 AM , Rating: 2
It's ironic how you want to save every tree on the planet and environmentalists actually advertise how we are destroying acres of forest an possibly cures to several diseases and aids and you name it. But want to have more babies...oh noooo, can't have that. That's another mouth to feed, another burden on the system. As opposed to another possible person to cure aids or solve the global energy crisis in 30 years. Typical socialist view...people are a burden on the system.


By masher2 (blog) on 6/30/2008 10:58:49 PM , Rating: 2
> "Typical socialist view...people are a burden on the system..."

quote:
Phasing out the human race will solve every problem on earth, social and environmental."
Dave Foreman, founder Earth First!


By The0ne on 7/1/2008 10:19:50 PM , Rating: 2
I won't disagree with your on your point that a person can become important later on as I believe it whole heartily. I'm not sure you might understand it though. For me the lives one is no different than the lives of the few. I will save that one person from a burning building if it kills me because you never know what he/she may become. I've yet to meet ANYONE that has made the same statement. All rather save what they can and go their own way.

Getting back to what I was going to end it with, I think people are a burden on the system. tens of thousand of years to get a a few billion in population and then in just a few short years skyrocketed. Imagine this continuing or even worse growing faster. I don't think Earth has enough resources for us cockaroaches. Sarcasm of course :D


By InfantryRocks on 6/30/2008 7:11:50 AM , Rating: 1
I want to thank you for fully dropping your veil of reason and showing just what all environmentalist idiots think of the average person, and, most importantly, the level of control environmentalists and their enablers want over our daily lives.

I hope you and your buddies come at me armed, because I won't be going quietly. You folks are insane, and I won't let crazy people have their way with me without a fight.


By HueyD on 6/30/2008 9:15:49 AM , Rating: 1
Read the article I posted further down. Greenland was once a lush green land <no pun intended>. This is part of a normal cycle the Earth has gone through many times before. Man has nothing to do with it.


By Misty Dingos on 6/30/2008 12:58:39 PM , Rating: 1
Well god help me I am going to try and help you out. Why? Because I am nice.

OK here goes. First things first, you are a blabber mouth. Geezo Pete! Slow down. "Give many men your ear and few your voice." One or two posts a day is plenty. No really I am serious.

Second. More words seldom make a better argument. "Simplicity is the soul of wit."

Third. The idea of a debate (even like this one) is to prevail with more convincing arguments and logic. Not to hammer the opposition with your perception of their failings.

Fourth. If sound like a duck and act like a duck don't be surprised if people declare duck season open on you.

Fifth. You are 28 years old. Not everyone else is and thus likely had a different life experience. Even if it seems obvious to you it may not to them.

Well I think that is a good start. Go have a non-caffeinated beverage and sit under a tree and relax. It will do you a world of good.


By Screwballl on 6/30/2008 4:57:51 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
For First Time in Recorded History


Those are the key words.. the earth goes through normal heating and cooling on its own without mans help...
I am sure at many times in the history of this planet even Antarctica has completely melted.

Al this without the help of man. A single large volcano eruption can double the amount of CO2 in the environment within days (a 100% increase). Yet mans contribution in the past millennium? Less than 0.0003% increase in CO2.

So much for "man-made global warming"


By andrinoaa on 7/1/2008 5:18:43 AM , Rating: 2
not much comfort if we are all going to die............lol


Analyst Opinion
By iFX on 6/30/08, Rating: -1
RE: Analyst Opinion
By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 6/30/2008 8:45:55 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
even the staff can't decide who is right and who is wrong.

That's pretty much how this news stuff works -- you get a bunch of people with dissenting views about stuff and let them rip each other apart.


RE: Analyst Opinion
By just4U on 6/30/2008 1:46:48 PM , Rating: 2
and somehow in the proccess those of us who don't know a whole helluva lot about the topic seem to leave a little more informed...

Funny how that works...


RE: Analyst Opinion
By Flunk on 6/30/2008 4:42:41 PM , Rating: 1
Actually DT does do that, everything listed as a "Blog Post" is an opinion. Didn't you know that?


RE: Analyst Opinion
By iFX on 6/30/2008 7:20:20 PM , Rating: 2
I guess you missed the part where this was a DT "Top Story" and then became a "blog" post and swept away from the "Top Stories" section to the "Latest Blog" section.


"The whole principle [of censorship] is wrong. It's like demanding that grown men live on skim milk because the baby can't have steak." -- Robert Heinlein

















botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki