Faith Focused Dating. Create your Free Profile and meet your Match! Sign Up for Free
A place to learn, mingle, and share

This room is for the discussion of current events,cultural issues and politics especially in relation to Catholic values.

Saint Thomas More was martyred during the Protestant Reformation for standing firm in the Faith and not recognizing the King of England as the Supreme Head of the Church.
Learn More:Saint Thomas More

Wait...how can Global Warming(Climate Change) be causing MORE ice? How is this possible? We've been told that the polar bears were at risk because of melting ice, caused by Global Warming. How can this be explained?

www.cnsnews.com.






LOCKED
Apr 28th 2014 new
(quote) John-96761 said: Wait...how can Global Warming(Climate Change) be causing MORE ice? How is this possible? We've been told that the polar bears were at risk because of melting ice, caused by Global Warming. How can this be explained?

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/barbara-hollingsworth/alaskan-polar-bears-threatened-too-much-sp...






John, you'll be happy to know that I think I've figured it out. Well, actually a couple of bright young folks were educating me about Climate Change last week. As they gushed with enthusiasm about the end times, it all started to make sense.

You see, it isn't Global Warming after all! It is "Climate Change." Now, we all know that the climate is changing...agreed? and that it has always been changing...less obvious but easy to accept. So how can we or anyone else object to the fact that there is Climate Change? We can't. It's obviously true.

In fact, Climate Change is a perfect moniker for the issue, because it can mean whatever you want it to mean. In addition to that, you can change the definition as the data changes to support your grants...umm, I mean to support your position...umm, well, I mean to support your conclusions! Yes, that's it. As the data comes in, you can change the definition of climate change, which is a meaningless term anyway, and who can object? Since it had no meaning to begin with, how can you object if the activists, umm, I mean the scientists change the definition.

This is brilliant! Once I understood the game, I can now at least admire the brilliance behind the man who coined the pharse, umm I mean phrase-typo- "Climate Change." They told me who it was, but alas, I've already forgeotten his name. But, I'm sure he is in line for the Nobel Prize. He'll join the long line of people who earned it with their brilliance, like Barack Hussein Obama who started the seas to recede and Al Gore of the 10,000+ kilowatt-hour house whose made $100 million on cap and trade, or so they say.

So, more ice...Climate Change; hottest year on record....Climate Change. It's all the same and it's all good...I mean BAD. Yes, this is bad because it is going to cost us a lot more in weather forecasters keeping up with all this change. But...think about it...wasn't the Democratic Party's motto all about Change? In fact, they wanted, if memory serves, to Move On to Fundamental Change. So, he we are....

Conclusion: we have to fight Climate Change to save the polar bears. It doesn't matter if they are dying from warming or cooling, because IT'S ALL CHANGE. Don't you see? It's now clear to me.

I can see clearly now, the rain is gone.....That's where it all started. With change in the weather, brought to us by The Weathermen.

LOCKED
Apr 28th 2014 new
(quote) John-96761 said: Wait...how can Global Warming(Climate Change) be causing MORE ice? How is this possible? We've been told that the polar bears were at risk because of melting ice, caused by Global Warming. How can this be explained?

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/barbara-hollingsworth/alaskan-polar-bears-threatened-too-much-sp...






You'll have to ask the all-knowing Goracle. lil mikie
LOCKED
Apr 29th 2014 new
(quote) Gerald-283546 said:

John, you'll be happy to know that I think I've figured it out. Well, actually a couple of bright young folks were educating me about Climate Change last week. As they gushed with enthusiasm about the end times, it all started to make sense.

You see, it isn't Global Warming after all! It is "Climate Change." Now, we all know that the climate is changing...agreed? and that it has always been changing...less obvious but easy to accept. So how can we or anyone else object to the fact that there is Climate Change? We can't. It's obviously true.

In fact, Climate Change is a perfect moniker for the issue, because it can mean whatever you want it to mean. In addition to that, you can change the definition as the data changes to support your grants...umm, I mean to support your position...umm, well, I mean to support your conclusions! Yes, that's it. As the data comes in, you can change the definition of climate change, which is a meaningless term anyway, and who can object? Since it had no meaning to begin with, how can you object if the activists, umm, I mean the scientists change the definition.

This is brilliant! Once I understood the game, I can now at least admire the brilliance behind the man who coined the pharse, umm I mean phrase-typo- "Climate Change." They told me who it was, but alas, I've already forgeotten his name. But, I'm sure he is in line for the Nobel Prize. He'll join the long line of people who earned it with their brilliance, like Barack Hussein Obama who started the seas to recede and Al Gore of the 10,000+ kilowatt-hour house whose made $100 million on cap and trade, or so they say.

So, more ice...Climate Change; hottest year on record....Climate Change. It's all the same and it's all good...I mean BAD. Yes, this is bad because it is going to cost us a lot more in weather forecasters keeping up with all this change. But...think about it...wasn't the Democratic Party's motto all about Change? In fact, they wanted, if memory serves, to Move On to Fundamental Change. So, he we are....

Conclusion: we have to fight Climate Change to save the polar bears. It doesn't matter if they are dying from warming or cooling, because IT'S ALL CHANGE. Don't you see? It's now clear to me.

I can see clearly now, the rain is gone.....That's where it all started. With change in the weather, brought to us by The Weathermen.

Outstandingly hilarious,Gerald and right on the money to boot!!!


A Job well done!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
LOCKED
Apr 29th 2014 new
(quote) Lauren-927923 said: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/new-climate-information

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=79369

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/faqs/index.html

http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?release=2012-355




I didn't find anything in the links to dispute the article about polar bears being threatened, because of too much spring ice.

www.thegwpf.org
Excerpt: "Satellite data shows that Arctic sea ice was 50 per cent thicker in Autumn 2013 than it was in Autumn 2012, according to the US National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC).
Data from the European Space Agencys (ESAs) CryoSat satellite which is equipped to measure the thickness of sea ice using radars shows that Arctic sea ice volumes grew by 50 per cent last year. This is due to an increase in ice thickness, since sea ice extent declined by around 3 per cent."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Looks like the volume of Arctic ice grew by around 50 percent last year. I don't understand how Global Warming can cause the ice volume to go up by 50% recently. It must be getting cooler.

LOCKED
Apr 29th 2014 new
(quote) Gerald-283546 said:

John, you'll be happy to know that I think I've figured it out. Well, actually a couple of bright young folks were educating me about Climate Change last week. As they gushed with enthusiasm about the end times, it all started to make sense.

You see, it isn't Global Warming after all! It is "Climate Change." Now, we all know that the climate is changing...agreed? and that it has always been changing...less obvious but easy to accept. So how can we or anyone else object to the fact that there is Climate Change? We can't. It's obviously true.

In fact, Climate Change is a perfect moniker for the issue, because it can mean whatever you want it to mean. In addition to that, you can change the definition as the data changes to support your grants...umm, I mean to support your position...umm, well, I mean to support your conclusions! Yes, that's it. As the data comes in, you can change the definition of climate change, which is a meaningless term anyway, and who can object? Since it had no meaning to begin with, how can you object if the activists, umm, I mean the scientists change the definition.

This is brilliant! Once I understood the game, I can now at least admire the brilliance behind the man who coined the pharse, umm I mean phrase-typo- "Climate Change." They told me who it was, but alas, I've already forgeotten his name. But, I'm sure he is in line for the Nobel Prize. He'll join the long line of people who earned it with their brilliance, like Barack Hussein Obama who started the seas to recede and Al Gore of the 10,000+ kilowatt-hour house whose made $100 million on cap and trade, or so they say.

So, more ice...Climate Change; hottest year on record....Climate Change. It's all the same and it's all good...I mean BAD. Yes, this is bad because it is going to cost us a lot more in weather forecasters keeping up with all this change. But...think about it...wasn't the Democratic Party's motto all about Change? In fact, they wanted, if memory serves, to Move On to Fundamental Change. So, he we are....

Conclusion: we have to fight Climate Change to save the polar bears. It doesn't matter if they are dying from warming or cooling, because IT'S ALL CHANGE. Don't you see? It's now clear to me.

I can see clearly now, the rain is gone.....That's where it all started. With change in the weather, brought to us by The Weathermen.

Great post Gerald! My climate changed about 10 degrees in the last two days...I hope it's not a trend.
LOCKED
Apr 30th 2014 new
(quote) John-96761 said: I didn't find anything in the links to dispute the article about polar bears being threatened, because of too much spring ice.

http://www.thegwpf.org/arctic-sea-ice-volume-increases-50/
Excerpt: "Satellite data shows that Arctic sea ice was 50 per cent thicker in Autumn 2013 than it was in Autumn 2012, according to the US National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC).
Data from the European Space Agencys (ESAs) CryoSat satellite which is equipped to measure the thickness of sea ice using radars shows that Arctic sea ice volumes grew by 50 per cent last year. This is due to an increase in ice thickness, since sea ice extent declined by around 3 per cent."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Looks like the volume of Arctic ice grew by around 50 percent last year. I don't understand how Global Warming can cause the ice volume to go up by 50% recently. It must be getting cooler.

I didn't post them to dispute but to provide some explanations. Changes in wind patterns, movement of ice with currents, bringing ice to one area as in the Polar bear concern, while ice leaves another area. Despite some patterns of increasing ice, other areas are seeing a loss of ice. Antarctica as well has had big shifts in ice pack. There are yearly accummulations of ice as well, so some of it is new ice, some of it is just combined ice, some of the ice will melt away, some that melts will be new ice and some of it will be the old ice.

Increased melting, increases water, which increases water vapor through evaporation which increases the amount of rainfall and snow, etc.

Just trying to provide you with direct data access rather than someone else's reporting of it. And, provide you with enough information to follow the keywords to even more information. It's all explicable, just have to follow the threads to the original data and explanations.
LOCKED
May 1st 2014 new
(quote) Lauren-927923 said: I didn't post them to dispute but to provide some explanations. Changes in wind patterns, movement of ice with currents, bringing ice to one area as in the Polar bear concern, while ice leaves another area. Despite some patterns of increasing ice, other areas are seeing a loss of ice. Antarctica as well has had big shifts in ice pack. There are yearly accummulations of ice as well, so some of it is new ice, some of it is just combined ice, some of the ice will melt away, some that melts will be new ice and some of it will be the old ice.

Increased melting, increases water, which increases water vapor through evaporation which increases the amount of rainfall and snow, etc.

Just trying to provide you with direct data access rather than someone else's reporting of it. And, provide you with enough information to follow the keywords to even more information. It's all explicable, just have to follow the threads to the original data and explanations.
Hi Lauren,
I don't see anything wrong with someone else reporting data. Actually, it is crucial for someone else to report data when government agencies choose to selectively report or bury information. Government agencies like NASA,NOAA and the Dept. of Energy have some questions to answer, after the release of the Climategate emails. These government agencies should not be above question, just as other government agencies/departments should not be above question, including(recently): IRS,NSA,DHS,BLM,TSA,FBI,DOS, GSA,VA,etc

You previously referenced Snopes, and they report others' data too. It shouldn't matter who reports data; what matters is that they get it right. Snopes is run by a husband and wife in Southern California and (based on their own flawed report of Al Gore's energy usage) they are not very credible.

If temperatures are increasing and the ice is melting, how can there be more ice? If it were the case all along that Global Warming causes more snow, therefore more ice, why have we been told for years that the ice is shrinking due to Global Warming? Warmists weren't saying that Global Warming would cause more ice before. Warmists cannot have it both ways when nature doesn't follow their projections. Sounds like another reason they went from naming it Global Warming to Climate Change.

LOCKED
May 1st 2014 new
(quote) John-96761 said: Hi Lauren,
I don't see anything wrong with someone else reporting data. Actually, it is crucial for someone else to report data when government agencies choose to selectively report or bury information. Government agencies like NASA,NOAA and the Dept. of Energy have some questions to answer, after the release of the Climategate emails. These government agencies should not be above question, just as other government agencies/departments should not be above question, including(recently): IRS,NSA,DHS,BLM,TSA,FBI,DOS, GSA,VA,etc

You previously referenced Snopes, and they report others' data too. It shouldn't matter who reports data; what matters is that they get it right. Snopes is run by a husband and wife in Southern California and (based on their own flawed report of Al Gore's energy usage) they are not very credible.

If temperatures are increasing and the ice is melting, how can there be more ice? If it were the case all along that Global Warming causes more snow, therefore more ice, why have we been told for years that the ice is shrinking due to Global Warming? Warmists weren't saying that Global Warming would cause more ice before. Warmists cannot have it both ways when nature doesn't follow their projections. Sounds like another reason they went from naming it Global Warming to Climate Change.

John,

You are absolutely correct in that you should seek out multiple lines of evidence when researching a subject. But, not everyone is able to speak on every topic, even in science we have specialties. And, there are a very many scientific subjects of which I cannot speak. Additionally, when you move from primary sources, to secondary and in many cases like bloggers tertiary sources if the person isn't very educated and savvy they will either unintentionally or worse misrepresent the material.

Snopes is one of a several fact checking sites -- that is their business to check the facts. That means they take the "rumor" or "potential misinformation" and they research it and then present the results of their investigation. That is why it is a quick way to check out some of the things that get sent around, especially things that end up repeated on dozens and dozens of sites -- many of whom claim to be the only place to get the truth -- these are all false advertisements in a sense. Just like other advertisers who say want to push something as healthy so they add healthy, lowfat, all natural etc to the label, when sites immediately set themselves up as the ONLY place to get the REAL truth -- you can pretty much bet it is not -- they are drawing in people with false advertising to advance their own agenda and these things work because people don't know, they are afraid, or they are disenfranchised for some reason. I teach critical evaluation and critical thinking in my classes. These are the steps I provide for my students in order to assess a source.

1. What type of source is it? Is it a newsreport? Is it in a magazine? What kind of magazine? Is it a scientific report? Is it a summary of a scientific study by a science editor for a reputable newspaper or magazine? Is it someone's opinion of a scientific study?
2. Who wrote it? What are their credentials? For example, Richard Dawkins the author of The God Delusion has absolutely no training nor education in either history or theology -- he ha absolutely no authority nor does he possess the credentials to speak about theological subjects but he does and because he is a scientist and holds an advanced degree people will buy into what he says -- but the fact is, he has no more credibility or authority to write about God or his lack of being than any atheist blogger on the internet. Not to mention if he turned in the God Delusion to me as an academic work it would receive a big fat F -- he makes assertions, presents things as fact but provides not a single citation for it -- the few citations he does provide in the book are to websites for atheist groups. Hardly balanced or appropriate scholarship. So you want to know who wrote it and what are his credentials -- in the global warming debate --- a person with a degree in one of the many fields that feed into the data for this information are far more credible than some guy who writes a blog and has an accounting degree or no degree or a degree in philosophy.
3. What are the biases? Of the author, of the place where it is published, etc. Are the biases transparent?? Someone from the Patriot Real News Site -- has an agenda and it is obvious from their name (I made the name up so if there really is a place like that out there it is a coincidence) -- First they appeal to the concept of nationalism and patriotism by the use of Patriot, second they attempt to indicate because they are patriots they are in a place to provide the REAL news, not something with a vile agenda against all that a Patriot holds true. Again, whenever they present information in a manner that is inflammatory -- using strong, powerfully negative and derogatory words -- they have one intent -- hit the gut, inflame the emotion, build the outrage, then feed it with similar streams of fodder -- this has two purposes -- first it gets you really outraged and second it keeps you from really taking a minute and thinking with your head and going wait a minute. . . anytime someone makes an outrageous claim, I immediately stop and say whoa there nelly -- lets step back from this and examine it from more objective, less provocative avenues. A third purpose of this type of rhetoric is to fill you with so much disgust or fear or both that you refuse to accept anything at all from the other camp -- it is dichotomous enemy building. And, people do it, because it works. Doesn't make it truthful, just makes it a successful tactic.

4. How did this piece come to be published? Was it reviewed by peers -- meaning other people in the same or closely related fields who have the expertise, experience and education to evaluate the paper? Or not. Was it reviewed and accepted by an editor or an editorial panel -- fif so what are the credentials of the editor or panel members? Was it self published? Was it taken up by a fringe group who operates independently in order to have no one tell them what to print ----- red flags red flags.

5. Climategate is a perfect example --- you find this exceptionally outraging and yet it has been investigated ad nauseum and in all cases there was found to be no fraud, no deception and these were private correspondences between scientists discussing data and how best to handle it and how best to present it. Take a look at the author's list on one of these papers -- everyone of those scientists puts his seal on the paper in multiple stages and again before publication -- if they didn't agree they would remove themselves from the list of authors and they have multiple chances to do so. These 1000 emails or so, were illegally obtained and unethically obtained, then they were disseminated as evidence of some wicked conspiracy -- which does not exist -- but that is what happens when things are taken out of their context or things are cherry picked.
The pdf internet publication that you posted -- I spent a few hours evaluating. The author claims to have a PhD from Melbourne University and yet I could find no reference to him there at all. Likewise, he has no publications in scientific journals that I could find -- one perhaps might have been him but it had nothing to do with this subject. He provides only a couple of references and those are to the web place where he obtained the emails. Then in his paper he does not provide the entire email -- he provides excerpts -- these then have been cherry picked to choose the most easily manipulated statements which sound the most damning --- so these are at least two times perhaps even three or more times removed from their context. It makes them all but worthless because of that. He provides his opinion he has no verifiable credibility to speak on these situation and defintely not to annotate them -- these are his opinion and they are specifically designed to hit your gut and shock and outrage you. There is no legitimate evaluation of the emails -- which he had no right to have in the first place.

I actually wrote a very detailed evaluation of the Climategate PDF and I saved it I think if you want it, but then I thought why bother, you want to believe what you want to believe and you seek information from sources that support your a priori assumptions.

I have said it before, I am not an ardent what do you call them warmists?? I deal with climatic data in my research and so have some experience and expertise in the area for my region specifically. I am not sure I buy the fact that the extreme dangers will come to pass or that they will be entirely detrimental to the planet, I think the science is still out on that, but that doesn't mean we should just not give a flip and continue to consume and destroy our natural resources if there are options even small ones that can help alleviate this. It is not a new concern -- before this it was the impact of aerosols on the Ozone layer, etc.

MY CONCERN is that you refuse opportunities to examine this subject from multiple legitimate sources and make a balanced and informed and educated assessment of it.

As I said, your question about how can we have global warming AND too much ice is explicable. The answer is there, the explanation is there, you just have to reach out and grab it. I have offered to get any legitimate article you want from a peer reviewed source for you to read. All you have to do is ask and I will load you up with them. Then you can read through them -- tease apart their methodology, look for and read any comments responses and commentaries on these articles -- because believe me getting past peer review does not end the evaluation some papers are followed with long series of comments and replies teasing out methodology, samples, data, etc.

Sure sometimes there are bad apples in science -- they are few and far between and they really don't last long -- but they can cause damage, especially to the public perception of science -- but the majority of scientists take their work, their findings and their reporting of them very seriously. I want you to engage your intellect in this before your gut and make a concerted effort to seek the information from appropriate sources once you do this and you begin to see what the context and the original articles are saying, you will most probably find that the sources you have been relying on are in fact guilty of the same thing they are accusing the scientists of.

And, here's an example from my own research -- next generation sequencing produces thousands upon thousands of reads. I am interested in those sequence reads that are mappable to nematodes (parasitic intestinal worms specifically). I have twelve data sets of which the raw data consists of more than 1 million reads per sample set and the largest has over five million reads -- without complex computer power this is an unmanageable amount of data - so we set parameters and run these reads through to filter them into smaller and smaller data sets -- sure we might miss some things in the filtering but it is the only way to manage the data. And, in the methodology it will tell you what is kept and what wasn't in general. Even if I published and had the room to publish the entire raw data set you wouldn't have a clue what you were looking at, nor what to do with it. Neither would a climate scientist. Heck, some of it I don't even know what to do with, but I will discuss it back and forth with others who have a better idea of what to do with it or how to handle it. And, I am sure if they hacked my emails they would be able to compile some case of wicked deception because they could take things and manipulate them to look bad.

So as I have told you more than once now, I will be more than happy to provide you with anything you request from a legitimate source. You don't trust my authority or credentials and that is fine, but you still need to go to the source and decide from there, not with all this other stuff that only serves to cloud the situation. And to be honest I won't take you seriously until you do so. When you do that, then we can have a genuine conversation about global warming, climate change, ice packs etc. You pick the scientific articles and I will read them as well and we can then tease them apart. Up to you.
LOCKED
Posts 1 - 10 of 200