Antarctica is GAINING ice! Damn... now what, global warming hysterics?

[Jen]

Antarctica is gaining more ice than what it loses from its glaciers, new research by Nasa claims.

It says Antarctica's ice sheet is currently thickening enough to outweigh increased losses caused by melting glaciers, which is attributed to global warming.

The research challenges the conclusions of other studies, including the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) 2013 report, which says that Antarctica is losing land ice overall.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3300063/Antarctica-GAINING-ice-s-losing-10-000-year-old-trend-reverse-Nasa-warns.html

The dummies will believe the scam and screech their support for it. They hate the "rich" but apparently they don't hate those who are becoming rich from the Global Warming scam. Pretty confusing stuff.

 

[Poseidon Atlantis]

The dummies will believe the scam and screech their support for it. They hate the "rich" but apparently they don't hate those who are becoming rich from the Global Warming scam. Pretty confusing stuff.

So we have enough ice to make cocktails ? Whew !!

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

It is seasonal Barbella --- Those 'scientists' who insist it is melting are $'con' men. They chose a time of year when the ice is high to begin their one year long study, they then start squealing 'its melting its melting, run for the hills' at the time of year that it always melts. Meanwhile who asks those scientists who have been studying the Ice for 30 years and say nothing unusual has or is happening, who asks them? No one does.

Conservation Is Nothing But Hoarding

Antarctica has a land mass as big as the contiguous United States. More than likely, it has the same amount of oil, minerals, and fresh water we had originally. In 1961, the transnational ruling classes shut it off from development in order to create scarcities, all part of their long-term strategy to enable overcharging and class absolutism. All these touchy-feely eco-eunuchs and escapist scientists are vicious misfits and disguised enemies of human progress.

 

[Queen Titania]

Conservation Is Nothing But Hoarding

Antarctica has a land mass as big as the contiguous United States. More than likely, it has the same amount of oil, minerals, and fresh water we had originally. In 1961, the transnational ruling classes shut it off from development in order to create scarcities, all part of their long-term strategy to enable overcharging and class absolutism. All these touchy-feely eco-eunuchs and escapist scientists are vicious misfits and disguised enemies of human progress.

You do know your wells are refilling? Oil is replenishing.

 

[oicu812]

Perhaps you didn't read the link, which pointed out that the growth of Antarctic ice is a trend that began 10,000 years ago and that is not guaranteed to continue indefinitely. At best, it gives us a little more breathing space to address the climate change crisis before it becomes a worse nightmare.

problem is,,,there is no nightmare...

theres unscrupulous hucksters conning marks outta their cash by frightening them with incomplete data, erroneous conclusions and fear mongering that blames every twister, tornado, flood, hurricane, earthquake and tsunami on the all encompassing umbrella of "global warming/cooling/climate change/weather aberrations"...

 

[oicu812]

You do know your wells are refilling? Oil is replenishing.

has the earth stopped producing oil?
no, the process is the same,,theres just less huge animals to liquify...

water?
if less water is removed than whats added, then yes, wells will rise...same in reverse...

gold?
i see no scientific reason why the earth is not producing the same amts. of gold over time..the surface gold may have been collected, but the process remains the same...

 

[EatTheRich]

problem is,,,there is no nightmare...

theres unscrupulous hucksters conning marks outta their cash by frightening them with incomplete data, erroneous conclusions and fear mongering that blames every twister, tornado, flood, hurricane, earthquake and tsunami on the all encompassing umbrella of "global warming/cooling/climate change/weather aberrations"...

Actually there's a robust scientific consensus that carbon emissions have caused the observed warming (as basic physics predicted they would), leading to a predicted and observed increase in severity of cyclones and frequency and severity of floods. No one has ever suggested that earthquakes are caused by global warming.

 

[oicu812]

Actually there's a robust scientific consensus that carbon emissions have caused the observed warming (as basic physics predicted they would), leading to a predicted and observed increase in severity of cyclones and frequency and severity of floods. No one has ever suggested that earthquakes are caused by global warming.

thank you for reiterating what i said..

now for the earthquake bs..

"scientists now say global warming is responsible for more frequent and larger earthquakes":


https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjdos27xPvKAhWJs4MKHabsBpsQFggdMAA&url=http://dailycaller.com/2015/04/28/scientists-say-global-warming-will-cause-deadly-earthquakes/&usg=AFQjCNGxjarf_h1Nu1-6VpQcrmGilv935w&sig2=vqVAKO-PpxeU8BLb5wwiSQ

 

[EatTheRich]

has the earth stopped producing oil?
no, the process is the same,,theres just less huge animals to liquify...

water?
if less water is removed than whats added, then yes, wells will rise...same in reverse...

gold?
i see no scientific reason why the earth is not producing the same amts. of gold over time..the surface gold may have been collected, but the process remains the same...

Oil, which came mostly from plants, not huge animals, takes hundreds of thousands of years to produce (when conditions for oil formation even exist). Even if supplies were being replenished, we are using it (and releasing the carbon stored in it) thousands of times faster than it is produced.

The issues with water are that, first, the water is increasingly polluted and, second, due to warming a greater proportion of water is inaccessible in the atmosphere. Moreover, the shrinking of glaciers means that water supplies to major cities and agricultural producers dependent on those glaciers are drying up.

The earth does not produce gold at all and never has. Gold, like the other heavy elements, is formed by nuclear fusion in stars, and all the gold in the Earth's crust is left over from when the Earth formed.

In short, you're awfully certain for not having a clue what the he'll you're talking about.

 

[EatTheRich]

thank you for reiterating what i said..

now for the earthquake bs..

"scientists now say global warming is responsible for more frequent and larger earthquakes":


https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjdos27xPvKAhWJs4MKHabsBpsQFggdMAA&url=http://dailycaller.com/2015/04/28/scientists-say-global-warming-will-cause-deadly-earthquakes/&usg=AFQjCNGxjarf_h1Nu1-6VpQcrmGilv935w&sig2=vqVAKO-PpxeU8BLb5wwiSQ

I stand corrected.

 

[oicu812]

Oil, which came mostly from plants, not huge animals, takes hundreds of thousands of years to produce (when conditions for oil formation even exist). Even if supplies were being replenished, we are using it (and releasing the carbon stored in it) thousands of times faster than it is produced.

The issues with water are that, first, the water is increasingly polluted and, second, due to warming a greater proportion of water is inaccessible in the atmosphere. Moreover, the shrinking of glaciers means that water supplies to major cities and agricultural producers dependent on those glaciers are drying up.

The earth does not produce gold at all and never has. Gold, like the other heavy elements, is formed by nuclear fusion in stars, and all the gold in the Earth's crust is left over from when the Earth formed.

In short, you're awfully certain for not having a clue what the he'll you're talking about.

i got that from you...

 

[oicu812]

I stand corrected.

now lets work on the global warming shenanigans...

 

[EatTheRich]

now lets work on the global warming shenanigans...

Ok, let's talk about the thread topic. Does anyone seriously think that the reason rational, educated people are concerned about global warming is because they don't think Antarctica's gonna be icy enough?

 

[Queen Titania]

has the earth stopped producing oil?
no, the process is the same,,theres just less huge animals to liquify...

water?
if less water is removed than whats added, then yes, wells will rise...same in reverse...

gold?
i see no scientific reason why the earth is not producing the same amts. of gold over time..the surface gold may have been collected, but the process remains the same...

Oil is made not by animals --- it is a chemical reaction somewhere deep down in the Earths mantle --- Oil is abiotic not fossil. It is renewable, self replenishing - it rises and so on ----

That it is fossil was an 18th century theory -

http://www.rense.com/general67/oils.htm

http://principia-scientific.org/russians-nasa-discredit-fossil-fuel-theory-demise-of-junk-co2-science/

http://anticorruptionsociety.com/anatomy-of-a-con-job/con-2-oil-is-not-a-fossil-fuel-it-is-renewable/

 

[Queen Titania]

Actually there's a robust scientific consensus that carbon emissions have caused the observed warming (as basic physics predicted they would), leading to a predicted and observed increase in severity of cyclones and frequency and severity of floods. No one has ever suggested that earthquakes are caused by global warming.

Insinuated =that they have done.

 

[EatTheRich]

Oil is made not by animals --- it is a chemical reaction somewhere deep down in the Earths mantle --- Oil is abiotic not fossil. It is renewable, self replenishing - it rises and so on ----

That it is fossil was an 18th century theory -

http://www.rense.com/general67/oils.htm

http://principia-scientific.org/russians-nasa-discredit-fossil-fuel-theory-demise-of-junk-co2-science/

http://anticorruptionsociety.com/anatomy-of-a-con-job/con-2-oil-is-not-a-fossil-fuel-it-is-renewable/

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Abiotic_oil

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

You do know your wells are refilling? Oil is replenishing.

Trustfundie Treehuggers

There's more oil underground, including directly underneath the producing wells, than there is salt water in the oceans. We've barely scratched the surface of the Earth's available resources. Much of the land cut off by the hoarders' government from development can be produced cheaply. The restricted areas were chosen at random, not from the territory that is worthless anyway.

Besides, technology is always making things cheaper, so drilling that was once too costly is that way no longer. Only suckers fall for the Enron cost accounting Big Oil uses to justify price extortion.

 

[Barbella]

NO, darling.

The question was, "which study or studies (credible, peer-reviewed), or which scientist or scientists who LED those studies, convinced YOU that manmade global climate chance was real?'.

And be honest;
Could you have named even one?

I didn't ask for a cut-n-paste of a Party-friendly bit of nonsense that was borrowed from some Party-friendly website or some Party-friendly Facebook posting.

The question was for YOU to honestly ask yourself if you could name even one.
And you did NOT.

And no, dear.
The science is NOT settled.
As much as you want to tell yourself that.

Allow me to back up for a moment.

I am an independent free-thinker, not a left winger or right winger.
I am a man of science.

My very profession relies upon good, hard science. Every single working day.

I drive a fuel-efficient Subaru, and I walk and/or bicycle when I can, to avoid excess pollution in the air.

I mow most of my lawn with a non-gasoline-powered Fiskars reel mower, to avoid dumping excess exhaust gasses into the air.

I am a good steward of the land. (I own some acreage here, on a spring-fed creek.)

I don't use gasoline powered tools when I trim the walking trails here, because I don't want to frighten the wildlife here.

I respect their peace and their environment.

Why do I take such environmental care, you might ask?

BECAUSE IT'S THE RIGHT THING TO DO.

And as many of you have heard me say, more than a few times probably, man should pollute less.

Man should dump less exhaust gasses into the air.
Man should take care not to dump trash, oil, and industrial waste into the waters.

Man should do all these things, BECAUSE IT'S THE RIGHT THING TO DO.

NOT because he is forced to by an over-reaching government, and not because of a bunch of trumped-up, hysterical, nonsensical reports (founded in junk science) generated by politicians who only want to use them to levy higher taxes on the citizenry.

This President and his left-leaning cronies have got it in their heads that by taxing and choking the living shit out of each and every corporation and tax-payer, they will somehow make billions of years of wax & wane of the climate all of a sudden reverse course.

They are WRONG. Their suppositions are politically-motivated, and founded in useless junk science.

Here is the reality;

In the end, if man stopped driving automobiles completely, and all airliners were grounded permanently, and the President stopped jetting off on vacations hither and yon non-stop, it would change the global climate and associated temperature just about a third of a degree over the next 100 years.


With that in mind, does it make any sense for these hysterical [Unwelcome language removed] in Washington to shove reams of regulations down our throats, knowing that it won’t help the climate one iota??

Great post, I'd give it a hundred stars if I could. So sorry I didn't see it until now.

 

[oicu812]

Ok, let's talk about the thread topic. Does anyone seriously think that the reason rational, educated people are concerned about global warming is because they don't think Antarctica's gonna be icy enough?

thats an odd question,,but no, i dont..

they are motivated by greed...

 

[EatTheRich]

thats an odd question,,but no, i dont..

they are motivated by greed...

Greed for what? What do you think most of us get out of limiting carbon emissions, besides a better future?