another warning shot from mother nature....

So we know that there not a consensus among scientists after all. Some disagree and they are willing to stand up and be recognized as not running with the herd and playing it safe. They are the brave ones.
Science is not about consensus, it is about empirical data and proof. Unfortunately for the "alarmists" the proof is not there and the evidence keeps getting refuted. This has become about public relations and browbeating the opposition into submission.

You know that at one time all learned men KNEW that the universe revolved around the earth.
It was the consensus of the elites that the earth had a diameter of only 5,000 miles (it's really 8,000)
At one time doctors would tell you that diseases were caused by bad humors.
Medical professionals knew that if you went faster than 60 mph that you would have a stroke.
It was impossible for men to fly, for men to go to the moon, and to build the Panama Canal. We all knew that until it was proven wrong.
It was not too long ago that they thought there was "white" blood and "black" blood and they couldn't be mixed.
I put the alarmists in with the same crowd as the Y2Kers. Remember them? They knew the world going to come to a grinding halt on midnight of the first day of 2000.
That was a consensus point of view.
They were wrong. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

more unsubstantiated bullshit from the school janitor

Scientists agree that this is NO LONGER a debate. Climate change is a fact.

Believe what you want to believe, bible thumper, but please present an intelligent argument, like Jesus walked with the dinosaurs, or that homosexuality it evil, or that the fucking constitution was handed down to the founding fucking fathers from mount fucking Sinai.

Oh yeah, and that Obama is a Kenyan communist and you're NOT a race baiting piece of shit.

Global warming? I thought the new term was "climate change". Originally Posted by zerodahero

It is referred to as Climate Change now instead of "Global Warming" . Global Warming is a one sided argument, where as Climate Change is much more substantiated by Scientific data.


Jim

So what's your point? There's no fucking water in Texas.

So, LittleEva, are you going to back up your claims, or just admit that you're making shit up?

And tell me, how do melting icebergs increase the sea level?

So what's your point? There's no fucking water in Texas. Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

The point is the term "Global Warming" is antiquated. Real scientists refer to changes in climate as " Climate Change" they monitor changes in climate in relation to how it affects weather, salt concentrations in the oceans, Ice formations in the polar regions ect. It's not just about warming. trends. Global Warming is what political nut jobs want to sell to weak minded idiots and get them to believe that a catastrophe is waiting on the horizon.

Jim

No fucking water in Texas???? I thought there was no fucking water in California....but I have an idea. Lasso one of those big old bergs and drag it's ass up to the US. Put it in a huge basin and pump the melting water out into the fields. California would have an endless supply of water.....oh, wait, the environmental Nazis would have a cow won't they.

So, LittleEva, are you going to back up your claims, or just admit that you're making shit up?

And tell me, how do melting icebergs increase the sea level? Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

So dull knife other than your dislike for me you have contributed nothing to the conversation. You apparently can't read, I was never talking about icebergs idiot, it is glacial melting off land mass. Go change your depend you are stinking up the board.

I like you, LittleEva. You're funny. I just want to see some support for your claims. I think you are making shit up. But I have no dislike for you.

Sir Isaac says both. Originally Posted by Old-T

It was Archimedes who is credited with formulating the "Archimedes' Principle", Old-Twerp,. But he wasn't a Christian, Old-Twerp; so, you'll need to console yourself with having nothing to rail about, you sanctimonious cretin.

I like you, LittleEva. You're funny. I just want to see some support for your claims. I think you are making shit up. But I have no dislike for you. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

.The same article LL was babbling about was the same one my statement came from. See his post # 85 where he admitted it.

It was Archimedes who is credited with formulating the "Archimedes' Principle", Old-Twerp,. But he wasn't a Christian, Old-Twerp; so, you'll need to console yourself with having nothing to rail about, you sanctimonious cretin. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Poor IB. Good attempt, but only partial credit at best.

The issue was not "why does ice float" (which would be Archimedes), but "does the water hold up the ice, or the ice hold down the water?" which, when answered correctly, is "both" (Newton's 3rd). Yes, I know the two questions are related, and it is a subtle difference in perspective, but try to understand. I'm sure you can.

Here are a couple references for you:

http://www.physicsclassroom.com/clas...on-s-Third-Law

vs

http://physics.weber.edu/carroll/arc.../principle.htm

If that isn't clear enough, I am doing a 2 hour science demonstration/lecture at the local 4th grade this afternoon and if you can get to NoVa I'll ask them to save you a seat.

As to your totally gratuitous religious attack, not even partial credit there at all. Unlike you I do not support or attack people because of what they believe--though I do ridicule Thumpers of any religion who claim to be spokesmen for their god, whoever that is, but selectively focus on the fire and brimstone parts while living their lives very, very differently (see Ian Hughes, Ted Haggard, etc.).

By the way, you might want to check some of your facts before you claim that Sir Isaac was a good upstanding christian. While initially Church of England, he became much more of a deist with a strong attraction to the occult as he grew up. I heard an interesting debate in England not long ago where the premise being debated was essentially "Was Newton a Heretic?" Some very interesting arguments for and against. Personally, I don't much care--I do not consider his religious beliefs germane to whether his science was right. Same for Archimedes. So had you been correct--which you were not--I would get neither pleasure nor pain from Archimedes being christian or not.

But since for some weird reason a person's religious affiliation seems overly important to you, do you support Ted Haggard more because he preached as a fiery Thumper? Or do you vilify Gandhi more because he wasn't? Which is it?

I guess someone needs to do the math. Since water makes up roughly 75% of the surface of the planet and the surface of the planet is 4pirsqd or 4*3.1415*(4,000 miles * 4,000 miles) or 201,056,000 square miles * 75% equals 150,792,000 square miles of water. Now break off a piece of glacier that weighs....a million tons or 2,000,000,000 lbs of frozen water (actually slightly less but we are guestimating). A gallon of water weighs 8.34 lbs so we have 239,808,000 gallons of water there. Since ice does float on water lets knock that down to an even 200,000,000 gallons of water. So that newly formed ice berg would eventually transfer a little over a gallon of water to every square mile of ocean area. Ummmmmm, that doesn't look like too much water. Change that to 100 ice bergs and you still only get about 125 gallons of water per square mile. Of course you have to factor in the refreezing and the evaporation of the oceans.

It really doesn't look too scary when you look at the math. Of course, I don't want my cruise ship to run into one near Mexico.

.The same article LL was babbling about was the same one my statement came from. See his post # 85 where he admitted it. Originally Posted by i'va biggen

Thank you for finally admitting you are wrong .... and "cherry picking" from articles in a lame-ass attempt to "prove" you are correct ....

As I said before ... you neglected to mention .... that portion of our "SOURCE ARTICLE" that stated the crust beneath the melting ice was lifting 10 times faster than the ice melt would impact the crust beneath the ice ....

I didn't see where you cited the article, but have to admit I figured you really didn't cite the same one, but you can always give me a link to the original post you made where you cited the article before I did ...

and if you can't ... it's just an example of you being a BAD LIAR ... as opposed to one who can lie and not get caught in his own bullshit ...


http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/0...e-to-ice-loss#

Like most "propoganda" the headlines don't reflect REALITY.

.."the observed "rebounding" effect is over 10 times faster than was expected given the amount of ice lost."

That line alone refutes your originally "THEORY" ... with the ice melt RESULTED in the rising of the land beneath it. ..... You conveniently neglected (intentionally the way you are struggling to remain relevant in the discussion) to EXPLAIN what was causing the other 90% of the uplifting BENEATH THE ICE!

[I][COLOR=Blue] The issue was not "why does ice float" (which would be Archimedes), but "does the water hold up the ice, or the ice hold down the water?" which, when answered correctly, is "both" (Newton's 3rd). Yes, I know the two questions are related, and it is a subtle difference in perspective, but try to understand. I'm sure you can. Originally Posted by Old-T

I do believe that the correct factual description of the impact on water of the chunk of ice being "tossed" into it is ..... the ice "displaces" the water it does not "compress" it beneath the ice, which is why one should always leave room in their glass before they "toss" in the cubes ... otherwise it would not be necessary to accommodate the liquid being "pushed aside" by the ice and the resulting increase in liquid level in the glass.

While you are demonstrating your physics lessons to the 4th graders you might mention that to reduce spills around the house and at restaurants when the REACH INTO A GLASS to get something out of the glass or put something into the glass ....

The same principle of glaciers "floating" on top the crust applies ... there is weight of the ice no doubt, but in the measurements being conducted that began this stupid conversation to "prove" the impact of "climate change" in the Antarctic it was "theorized" (actually fabricated) that the ice melting was eliminating the weight holding down the crust and the crust was rising as a result of the ice melt. When in fact the rate of ice melt could only "account" for 10% of the RATE of crust uplift in that region ... the other 90% had to do with the rather normal fluctuation of "liquified" rock (magma) beneath the crust pushing up .... see Hawaii.....or Pompeii ... or Mount St. Helena.

Hardly the results of "climate changes" caused by pollution of homo sapiens.

And I brought up the NASA study to demonstrate from another angle that if in fact the ice melt was eliminating weight on the crust and thereby "allowing" the crust to "rebound" and uplift, then NASA would be reporting an INCREASE IN THE GIRTH of the Earth, which it did not.

In fact the NASA report concluded it was "statistically insignificant" or the equivalent of the diameter of one human hair a year.... and therefore the SCIENTISTS concluded the Earth was NOT EXPANDING.

It has been hot outside the last few days in the Houston area.

http://www.timeanddate.com/weather/a...ica/south-pole

It is also "warming" up at the "South Pole" ...

.... expected to warm up to -49 F ... with a feel like of -77 F Saturday!

It is referred to as Climate Change now instead of "Global Warming" . Global Warming is a one sided argument, where as Climate Change is much more AMBIGUOUS AND EASIER TO TAX.


Jim Originally Posted by Mr MojoRisin

There.