NASA finds Antarctic ice shelf a few years from disintegration

The thing I really don't understand about climate change deniers is (ironically) something akin to Pascal's wager.

If Climate change is false, and we do nothing, nothing changes.

If Climate change is true, and we do nothing, we're pretty well boned.

If climate change is true, and we do something about it, we save ourselves and create a better world for our children.

If climate change is false, and we do something about it, saving ourselves isn't necessary, but we STILL create a better world for our children.

So, my question is, why don't we just run on the assumption that it's real, and make changes for the better? A more environmentally friendly world is a win/win, no matter whether climate change is real.

a reply to: rockpaperhammock



Evidence should be data .But even eye witnesses in a historical context should be considered .Letters written in the past describing the weather conditions or art work capturing ice skating parties on the Thames River or grape production or ancient settlements growing grains like in the arctic . These proxy's give us a glimpse into the past that can show us that places were warmer or colder . That is earths modern history in some and ancient history in other proxies .

Some of the proxy records that were put into the climate debate should not have been used as they lack the ability to track temperature very well . Tree rings are more responsive to moisture and fertilizer and some species have no temp signature to them . I was reading a audit to a recent paper that went through peer review and was published in a journal . One might think that that is all you need to consider the science to be valid . The audit found a flaw in the math which basically meant that the paper had no value in reality . Id did however support the AGW meme . As far as I know the paper has not been retracted but I could be wrong on that . There is some politicking going on behind the scenes and of coarse we hear our great leaders wanting to introduce new co2 taxes on the masses .

I would be comfortable if the climate where I lived went up 2 to 3 degrees only because I live in a cooler zone . Not to say that we cant get some really hot days because when I was a kid there were a few and there are still a few days where you go to the river and cool down . Or get a air conditioner and turn it on .Or just put up with the heat .

a reply to: lostbook

'B-b-but the planet is cooling! natural cycles and liars and stuff!'

It could get worse. The Melting polar ice caps could lead to the disruption of the oceans currents which could lead to more violent and unpredictable weather patterns, and that's before the sea level rises by a few feet.

'B-b-but the planet is cooling!'

Tell that to the Peruvians-If the world was cooling then their glaciers wouldn't be melting. It could be only a matter of time before the thaw triggers landslides.

a reply to: ScientificRailgun

Seems like a no brainer right?

Money, power and politics were threatened as soon as CO2 emissions were thrown into the debate. Ever since then, powerful people have launched a campaign to debunk climate change/global warming.

a reply to: the2ofusr1

Totally agree with you...and another point you made that is interesting. Many people, myself included, often look at this warming as something negative, but we really don't know how bad itll be...it could in fact make some areas greener which then takes out more co2. Once again...the never ending variables..

You know what is funny I dont even know wtf the agw regime is or whoever is leading the other side as well...the politics and money involved in this is what forces people to one side or the other usually and that is sad.

And really climatology is a new science. I do think ice cores and tree rings are a good indicator but as many have mentioned...that stuff aint perfect...at all.

I mentioned this before....when geology first came around there was tons of ideas on how massive events shaped the earth...then it slowly went into things like erosion and stuff is what really shaped the earth but just over millions of years...then it went back to the massive events thing. It is the same with climatology...it is hard to trust some farmer from 1857 who did his own "scientific" data analysis. Even the instruments we have are still getting better. Like in astronomy..one big telescope and all of a sudden we have 100s of planets we are discovering. We know more about the moon than the earth.

Either way we will survive...itll be expensive no matter what...

a reply to: SlapMonkey

By trying to predict things, you are, in and of yourself, being terribly predictable. It's quite comical to watch

Yes it is comical to watch when people are terribly predictable...

I think sea levels will continually rise and fall as earth goes through its icy and warm periods.

That same argument is used again and again and again...

We get it. There is natural climate variation but that evidence alone is not strong enough. Consider the fact that there are scientists taking ice cores from both poles, doing field work, correlating evidence...What are the debunkers doing? pulling out the same graph over and over and over.

"it's all natural baby!"

a reply to: rockpaperhammock

The IPCC is the agw regime and they are part and parcel to agenda 21 . There may be a counter to them but it seems as though it's coming from concerned scientist as well as joe public who are not buying into the scam . Al Gore ran out on a limb and started the co2 trading exchange to make some big bucks and created the inconvenient truth . He is or was the biggest chicken little of the bunch and scarred the beegbers out of people .Fortunately there were some rational people who were not scared and through the web have caused the debate despite them saying the debate is over . Heck Al Gore was saying that years ago and now his inconvenient truth is banned from schools in Britain or if not banned forced to add the inconvenient qualifiers to be shown .

It sounds bad, but before I doom and gloom about it I'd like to know how many times since the last ice age this has happened.

This had to have happened during the medieval warm period right? It was even warmer then.

a reply to: gspat

It has happened many times in the past but it has never happened with as much human influence in the past....so its something that should be measured. It isnt totally unreasonable to think humans could affect the climate on a massive scale let alone a local scale.

Even in ecology...a human can cut down a tree and all kinds of species will move in to live on that tree thus affecting the ecology in that little tiny area. You can see the pollution in some major cities...even cities alone affect wind patterns which can change things in the immediate area. Humans definitely impact the world...we just don't know how much yet...how many times in history have we had both at the same time: a warming period...and 6-8 billion humans...this would be the first if the warming period is indeed a natural one.

originally posted by: the2ofusr1
Does anyone find it strange that 31,487 American scientists have signed this petition,
including 9,029 with PhDs that don't by into the AGW meme ? Do they not use the scientific method ? Is there something missing in their education that would qualify them as a "denier" www.petitionproject.org... These are from America and I am sure they must have others around the world who would agree .

[snip]

Ø Though propagandists have sought to maintain that there is a “97% consensus” to the effect that recent global warming is mostly manmade, the truth – given in Legates et al. (2013) – is that only 0.3% of climate science papers published in the 21 years 1991-2011 stated that recent global warming was mostly man made:" wattsupwiththat.com...

First the Petition Project can be signed by pretty much anyone with a BS degree or works in a science related field. It is NOT signed by the vast majority of the climate scientists!

The 30,000 scientists and science graduates listed on the OISM petition represent a tiny fraction (0.3%) of all science graduates. More importantly, the OISM list only contains 39 scientists who specialise in climate science.

The next link you provided, wattsupwiththat.com. consists of blogs and opinions and offers no evidence, no real world data to back up the claims. Sure there is two sides of this debate, those who look at the data and evidence and those who repeat the buzz phrases that the 'denier' crowd clings to without actually bringing evidence to the discussion. I have also noticed the denier crowd likes to use the word fact often in their posts, often in caps. It also needs to be noted that wattsupwiththat.com was founded by a FOX News affiliate.

Sure there are some AGW proponents who go too far and sound the alarm for the wrong reasons and so on, these types are a small minority in terms of what the actual AGW proponents, and in do not represent what the 97% of the scientists who study this are telling this. That said, the climate change is a problem. We should be on alert and take actions where needed.

a reply to: GreenMachine
maybe you should , it has been suggested many times before but nothing has become of it .

one question should be looked into first , would the melting of the ice effect the sea where it is anchored ?.

a reply to: tom.farnhill

Everything effects everything in someway. Seems like the trillions of dollars that our government wastes killing enemies, a percentage could go to bringing ice from there or elsewhere and dropping it into some arid areas where it could drain into and refill some aquifers or reservoirs. I guess that the shear enormity of bringing enough to have any impact is what halts any actual attempt.

originally posted by: tom.farnhill
a reply to: GreenMachine
maybe you should , it has been suggested many times before but nothing has become of it .

one question should be looked into first , would the melting of the ice effect the sea where it is anchored ?.

No more than an average rainfall... it really would be the proverbial drop in the bucket.

a reply to: KewlDaddyFatty

Thanks for clearing that up for me, I was wondering about the science of the matter but didn't know where to look. Right - if ice starts falling into the ocean that isn't currently in the ocean already, then it would contribute to rising sea levels much more.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Fine. I stand by my opinion and respect that you have yours.

a reply to: lostbook

While that one is shrinking, how many are growing? They always seem to forget to give out that information.

Go figure.

The ice caps could walk right up and melt in front of our faces and we'd just keep it up with the Al Gore jokes.

Sounds like some Progressive factions are getting desperate as the funding dries up and the hoaxes get exposed.

97% of all BS artists agree.

I call it AGW chauvinism,right or wrong they will go down with the ship!

originally posted by: rockpaperhammock
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Yup and in 50 years when things are really bad they still will deny it haha.

A few months ago a rogue wave by me struck a restaurant and did some damage. They bring in trucks of sand constantly to fix the beaches here.

Are you trying to suggest rogue waves are man-made?