• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Arctic ice cap 'to disappear in future summers'

Obviously, if I'm operating an atom smasher in my livingroom, I can't use as much as I want. However, short of that, I can do what I please. I doubt very seriously I'm going to cause someone else to lose their service.

In most cases your right. I was implying where dictation on thermostat's are in affect from power supply companies during times of energy conservation (heatwaves, blizzards, etc.).

I've never seen thermostat levels being dictated in a non-conservation time.
 
Not in an apartment, it ain't. I set up a wind generator on my porch and built a battery bank, just to run the TV and a couple of lights. Management told me to romve it and I refused. A few days later, I got a visit from the fire marshal. With him, he had the city ordinance that prevented me, a non-licensed, non-bonded technician from configuring any electrical apparatus in an apartment complex, without the express permission and direction of the owner of the property. So, no, in my situation, I don't have a choice.

Then move. You have choices, and right now you are supporting socialism, making you a socialist.
 
Then move. You have choices, and right now you are supporting socialism, making you a socialist.

Nice try, that's not gonna fly and you know it.
 
In most cases your right. I was implying where dictation on thermostat's are in affect from power supply companies during times of energy conservation (heatwaves, blizzards, etc.).

I've never seen thermostat levels being dictated in a non-conservation time.

I've never seen conservation periods, but I don't live in Librul Land.
 
By "Librul Land" you mean any place with a population over 50,000?

No, I mean any place that is infested with Librulz. I lived in New Orleans and never experienced any conservation periods.
 
No, I mean any place that is infested with Librulz. I lived in New Orleans and never experienced any conservation periods.

Energy conservation is based on populace levels not political affiliation. :roll:

Leave your city of 400k for one of 7+ million and you may experience new things.
 
Last edited:
Energy conservation is based on populace levels not political affiliation. :roll:

You'd be hard pressed to document that one...:lol:

That is interesting though. I didn't know New Orleans was considered a city of conservatives.

Depends.....
 
I can't wait to see Atlantis. Unless they are hostile. Then I can wait.
 
You don't know much about our constitution..... it only limits what the government can do, not what we as a free people can do.

Again:



Amendment X

Orius said:
The Constitution has nothing to do with what private companies do and don't give you; it is a set of limitations on government.

You found an error when one does not exist. Pay closer attention next time.
 
The government doesn't have the right to control the market in such a manner that goods that are in demand aren't available. Doing so would violate my right to own property.

I'm not proposing the government would even do this. That's what YOU are proposing, by assuming with paranoia that environmental protections would do this.

All the government can do is provide incentives or disincentives to persuade industry. It won't directly tell them what to do. The whole point of environmental law is to provide incentives. If you are a big time polluter, your taxes go up. That's not a violation of your rights.
 
You'd be hard pressed to document that one...:lol

That's like saying right handers use more energy then left handers. It's obviously true since the major power consuming cities are majority right handed.
 
We had global warming falling from the sky today Oct 15 th in Northwestern Connecticut. It didn't really collect on the ground but there was this white stuff on the tree branches and / or leafs. So the warm air must be being moved by Al to the arctics!!!
 
For all you people claiming the earth is warming, please read this analysis of the citing and maintenance of the temp sensors used by NOAA and NASA to gather the "evidence" that you are relying on.

http://www.heartland.org/books/PDFs/SurfaceStations.pdf

If you still believe the data being provided by these organizations after reading this report, please say hello to the tooth fairy for me.:screwy
 
This argument is just ridiculous.

Are you deniers aware that nations are already preparing to duke it out at the UN over who has sovereignty of the new international water ways that will be formed when the ice permanently melts?

Are you dunderheads aware that Russia is already sending the first manned mission to chart a waterway through the Berring Strait to Asia, instead of going the Panama Canal route?

I swear... you people are so out of touch with reality because of your fear and paranoia about government. If you're so scared about regulations being passed down over the environment, then make your argument about government; don't make it about denying climate change as if it's not really happening.

The melting of polar ice is not only happening, but it's an emerging political issue for the future of arctic sovereignty. Canada itself is already investing over $60 billion in its navy to defend its right to possess all of its arctic lands in the light of the fact that ice is melting.

Wake the hell up!
 
Last edited:
This argument is just ridiculous.

Are you deniers aware that nations are already preparing to duke it out at the UN over who has sovereignty of the new international water ways that will be formed when the ice permanently melts?

Are you dunderheads aware that Russia is already sending the first manned mission to chart a waterway through the Berring Strait to Asia, instead of going the Panama Canal route?

I swear... you people are so out of touch with reality because of your fear and paranoia about government. If you're so scared about regulations being passed down over the environment, then make your argument about government; don't make it about denying climate change as if it's not really happening.

The melting of polar ice is not only happening, but it's an emerging political issue for the future of arctic sovereignty. Canada itself is already investing over $60 billion in its navy to defend its right to possess all of its arctic lands in the light of the fact that ice is melting.

Wake the hell up!

Oh for heavens sake. We went all last year with the doomsdayers mourning the demise of the Arctic ice cap, the devastation of polar bears, and pollution of the Arctic Sea with all those horrible ships passing through it. Even as NASA admitted that it was unusual winds, not CO2, that was causing ice melt, that the ice cap was increasing, not decreasing, and we have more polar bears now than have ever been recorded and they are fat, healthy, and doing just fine.

I try to keep an open mind on all this stuff, but the junk science being used by the Global Warming religionists is appalling, and I am more and more convinced that it is all a scam promoted by global leaders who want more control of our lives and personal property, and by opportunists who stand to profit enormously by mandated 'green' industries.

Why don't we all step back and take a good long hard look at what is actually happening, who stands to profit, and why they work so hard to shut up or discredit anybody who suggests that we do that? Even Greenpeace now admits they have used junk science to stir up more frenzy among the environmental religionists:

Ice Capades: Greenpeace recants polar ice claim, but “emotionalizing” is OK
2009

Well it is that time of year again, the Arctic ice begins to melt, as it does every year, and all sorts of crazy talk starts coming out. This time from Greenpeace. I am encouraged though, as they have come around to the idea that maybe they are doing more harm than good by overselling the alarmism.

NSIDC also has taken a more moderate tone, announcing that there will “likely be no record low ice extent in 2009“. This is a sharp contrast to last year’s ridiculous press statement from NSIDC’s Dr. Mark Serreze about an “ice free north pole”. Now that Greenpeace has come clean on their statement, maybe Dr. Serreze will finally admit his statement was “a mistake”. – Anthony

From Not Evil Just Wrong:

The outgoing leader of Greenpeace has admitted his organization’s recent claim that the Arctic Ice will disappear by 2030 was “a mistake.”

Greenpeace made the claim in a July 15 press release entitled “Urgent Action Needed As Arctic Ice Melts,” which said there will be an ice-free Arctic by 2030 because of global warming.

Under close questioning by BBC reporter Stephen Sackur on the “Hardtalk” program, Gerd Leipold, the retiring leader of Greenpeace, said the claim was wrong.

“I don’t think it will be melting by 2030. … That may have been a mistake,” he said.

Sackur said the claim was inaccurate on two fronts, pointing out that the Arctic ice is a mass of 1.6 million square kilometers with a thickness of 3 km in the middle, and that it had survived much warmer periods in history than the present.

The BBC reporter accused Leipold and Greenpeace of releasing “misleading information” and using “exaggeration and alarmism.”

Leipold’s admission that Greenpeace issued misleading information is a major embarrassment to the organization, which often has been accused of alarmism but has always insisted that it applies full scientific rigor in its global-warming pronouncements.

Although he admitted Greenpeace had released inaccurate but alarming information, Leipold defended the organization’s practice of “emotionalizing issues” in order to bring the public around to its way of thinking and alter public opinion.

MORE HERE
Ice Capades: Greenpeace recants polar ice claim, but “emotionalizing” is OK Watts Up With That?
 
Average global temps haven't increased since 1998. Stop living in denial.

It's not denial on my part. I have chosen to get my information from legitimate sources and not fall into the trap of the Algore anti-cult.

Global temperatures continue to rise, even despite the strong La Nina years of 2007-08.
 
It's not denial on my part. I have chosen to get my information from legitimate sources and not fall into the trap of the Algore anti-cult.

Global temperatures continue to rise, even despite the strong La Nina years of 2007-08.

Please cite "legitimate sources" that use accurate temp monitoring stations that are properly installed so that they reflect true ambient temps rather than exaggerated temps caused by AC exhaust, reflected sunlight from buildings, car exhaust or in at least one case, jet blast from airplanes taking off.

If you are using NOAA data, your conclusions are flawed by bad input. If you are using NASA data, then you are using data that has been adjusted upwards after the data was collected. For the arctic ice cap measurements claiming that they are shrinking, they were using satellite measuring tools that they KNOW to be widely erratic and inaccurate. The old measurements were known to be wrong, yet they continue to use that system even though they now have a much more accurate system in place. The big hoopla this year about an ice free north pole was debunked after a scientist pointed out that the maps he was getting from NASA showing open water actually had thicker pack ice that had been recorded in decades.

The problem with you global warmers is that you know that the data doesn't support you positions, but you believe so it must be so. Gee, I could have taken that same sentence from the arguments that atheists make about religion.

So me the proof, then verify the source data. Then verify that the source data was not cherry picked to throw out data that disagreed with your position. Then we can talk about killing our economy to FIX this "problem".
 
Please cite "legitimate sources" that use accurate temp monitoring stations that are properly installed so that they reflect true ambient temps rather than exaggerated temps caused by AC exhaust, reflected sunlight from buildings, car exhaust or in at least one case, jet blast from airplanes taking off.

If you are using NOAA data, your conclusions are flawed by bad input. If you are using NASA data, then you are using data that has been adjusted upwards after the data was collected. For the arctic ice cap measurements claiming that they are shrinking, they were using satellite measuring tools that they KNOW to be widely erratic and inaccurate. The old measurements were known to be wrong, yet they continue to use that system even though they now have a much more accurate system in place. The big hoopla this year about an ice free north pole was debunked after a scientist pointed out that the maps he was getting from NASA showing open water actually had thicker pack ice that had been recorded in decades.

The problem with you global warmers is that you know that the data doesn't support you positions, but you believe so it must be so. Gee, I could have taken that same sentence from the arguments that atheists make about religion.

So me the proof, then verify the source data. Then verify that the source data was not cherry picked to throw out data that disagreed with your position. Then we can talk about killing our economy to FIX this "problem".

Funny how you're easily swayed that NASA is not legitimate because they re-adjusted ONE year, yet you're jumping on the anti-warming bandwagon with gun's ablazing! It does not matter that pretty much ALL of the legitimate scientific scientists and sources out there agree that warming is happening, you chose to believe the silly crap from "created in a basement" websites and blogs.

I have debated this to death, and still, the deniers will deny the hard and factual numbers. If you're going to believe someone's blog over NASA, go right ahead... as moronic as that is.
 
Last edited:
Funny how you're easily swayed that NASA is not legitimate because they re-adjusted ONE year, yet you're jumping on the anti-warming bandwagon with gun's ablazing! It does not matter that pretty much ALL of the legitimate scientific scientists and sources out there agree that warming is happening, you chose to believe the silly crap from "created in a basement" websites and blogs.

I have debated this to death, and still, the deniers will deny the hard and factual numbers. If you're going to believe someone's blog over NASA, go right ahead... as moronic as that is.


hey Middleground, could you define for us, what constitutes a 'legitimate scientific scientist'?


j-mac
 
hey Middleground, could you define for us, what constitutes a 'legitimate scientific scientist'?


j-mac

Oops, I guess I didn't have enough coffee this morning. What I meant was legitimate climate scientists. Not wannabe meteriologists, and not bought out by sources with an agenda.

There is a huge consensus that global warming is real.
 
It's not denial on my part. I have chosen to get my information from legitimate sources and not fall into the trap of the Algore anti-cult.

Global temperatures continue to rise, even despite the strong La Nina years of 2007-08.

No, average global temps haven't risen since 1998. That's a fact.

For the last 11 years we have not observed any increase in global temperatures.

BBC NEWS | Science & Environment | What happened to global warming?

This would mean that temperatures have not risen globally since 1998 when El Nino warmed the world.

BBC NEWS | Science & Environment | Global temperatures 'to decrease'

Disconcerting as it may be to true believers in global warming, the average temperature on Earth has remained steady or slowly declined during the past decade, despite the continued increase in the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide, and now the global temperature is falling precipitously.
-Phil Chapman; geophysicist, astronautical engineer, and former NASA astronaut.

Sorry to ruin the fun, but an ice age cometh | The Australian

Curiously, the most recent and ongoing cooling event has no obvious proximate explanation, as there has been no substantive recent volcanic activity and the ENSO cycle since 2001/2002 has been benign (variability of less than one standard deviation of the multivariate ENSO index). This cooling, which appears unprecedented over the instrumental period, is suggestive of an internal shift of climate dynamical processes that as yet remain poorly understood.

https://pantherfile.uwm.edu/kswanson/www/publications/2008GL037022_all.pdf

Am I saying that CO2 emissions don't or can't affect global temperatures? No.

Am I saying that a long-term warming trend hasn't occurred? No.

Am I saying this short-term cooling trend is indicative of some long-term trend? No.

I'm just saying average global temps haven't risen since 1998, which is a fact. Sorry if you don’t like it.
 
No, average global temps haven't risen since 1998. That's a fact.

Wrong.

2005 is now considered the warmest year.

140894main_BlueMarble_2005_warm.jpg


NASA - 2005 Warmest Year in Over a Century

Apart from 2005, no year has registered a higher global temperature than 1998... since official temperature recordings began in the late 18's. So, yeah, compared to that freaky El Nino year, all else seems lesser (apart from 2005). Having said all of that, it does not mean that we are cooling. How can we be, when 7 of the last 10 years are in the top 10 hottest years since the late 18's??? There's plenty there, including this snippet:

The University of East Anglia and the Met Office's Hadley Centre have released preliminary global temperature figures for 2007, which show the top 11 warmest years all occurring in the last 13 years. The provisional global figure for 2007 using data from January to November, currently places the year as the seventh warmest on records dating back to 1850.
Other remarkable global climatic events recorded so far in 2007 include record-low Arctic sea ice extent, which led to first recorded opening of the Canadian Northwest Passage; the relatively small Antarctic Ozone Hole; development of La Niña in the central and eastern Equatorial Pacific; and devastating floods, drought and storms in many places around the world.


Top 11 Warmest Years On Record Have All Been In Last 13 Years

More here:

Data @ NASA GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis: Graphs


Am I saying that CO2 emissions don't or can't affect global temperatures? No.

I'd love to debate that, but we (collectively) can even agree that warming is real. Despite the strong and overwhelming evidence.

Am I saying that a long-term warming trend hasn't occurred? No.

First time I have read that from you (unless I missed it).

Am I saying this short-term cooling trend is indicative of some long-term trend? No.

I don't know. Some think that if it's snowing outside their window, then global warming is a bunch of bull.

I'm just saying average global temps haven't risen since 1998, which is a fact. Sorry if you don’t like it.

You stand corrected.
 
Back
Top Bottom