Modded Mustang Forums banner

101 - 120 of 462 Posts

·
FBGM
Joined
·
6,177 Posts
I wonder why the ice caps are melting.
 

·
US Air Force (retired)
Joined
·
13,542 Posts
I wonder why the ice caps are melting.
Are they? They shrank during the warm cycle which was a concern for everyone. Al Gore and other predicted they would be gone in 2014. But are recovering during the cold cycle. Because the ice caps are no longer shrinking the discussion has changed from ice caps in general to Antarctic land ice versus sea ice. Land ice is down, sea ice is up. The Thwaits glacer accelerated its march to the sea and huge chunk are breaking off. Then they discovered a volcano under the ice. Hidden Volcanoes Melt Antarctic Glaciers from Below
 

·
Pawsitively sexy
Joined
·
10,564 Posts
Are they? They shrank during the warm cycle which was a concern for everyone. Al Gore and other predicted they would be gone in 2014. But are recovering during the cold cycle. Because the ice caps are no longer shrinking the discussion has changed from ice caps in general to Antarctic land ice versus sea ice. Land ice is down, sea ice is up. The Thwaits glacer accelerated its march to the sea and huge chunk are breaking off. Then they discovered a volcano under the ice. Hidden Volcanoes Melt Antarctic Glaciers from Below
Can we get a quote? Or a link to the research?
 

·
US Air Force (retired)
Joined
·
13,542 Posts
Can we get a quote? Or a link to the research?
You are well aware there are plenty of satellite pictures and that they are easy to find on the internet. You are just trying to pick a fight. Your tactics are becoming well known. You split-hairs and attack the little things to get the focus off the main topic.

I wonder why the ice caps are melting.
The ice is back on the Great Lakes as well.
Great Lakes are 88% covered with ice

In case you haven't been tuned into the entire discussion. The earth goes through cycles of warming and cooling. They seem to be tied to the Pacific Decadal Oscillation which has roughly a 30 year cycle. That does not mean there isn't global warming. It just means that there are cycles of warming and cooling. There is also a longer-term warming pattern that goes back before the industrial revolution. The planet is still recovering from the little ice age. The longer view also has cycles of warming and cooling. Looking back further, before the little ice age, there were periods when the earth was warmer than now and the oceans were higher than now. They were the Medieval and Roman warm periods.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,093 Posts
You are well aware there are plenty of satellite pictures and that they are easy to find on the internet. You are just trying to pick a fight. Your tactics are becoming well known. You split-hairs and attack the little things to get the focus off the main topic.
Not trying to defend anyone elses position but my own but it's the little things that decide many times how the big picture turns out.

"The devil is in the details"

John
 

·
Pawsitively sexy
Joined
·
10,564 Posts
You are well aware there are plenty of satellite pictures and that they are easy to find on the internet. You are just trying to pick a fight. Your tactics are becoming well known. You split-hairs and attack the little things to get the focus off the main topic.



The ice is back on the Great Lakes as well.
Great Lakes are 88% covered with ice

In case you haven't been tuned into the entire discussion. The earth goes through cycles of warming and cooling. They seem to be tied to the Pacific Decadal Oscillation which has roughly a 30 year cycle. That does not mean there isn't global warming. It just means that there are cycles of warming and cooling. There is also a longer-term warming pattern that goes back before the industrial revolution. The planet is still recovering from the little ice age. The longer view also has cycles of warming and cooling. Looking back further, before the little ice age, there were periods when the earth was warmer than now and the oceans were higher than now. They were the Medieval and Roman warm periods.
You made an assertion and I asked for a quote. Asking for context isn't splitting hairs. Same for pictures. Of course there will be more ice in the winter then the summer. The context is extremely relevant.
 

·
US Air Force (retired)
Joined
·
13,542 Posts
Not trying to defend anyone elses position but my own but it's the little things that decide many times how the big picture turns out.

"The devil is in the details"

John
You are correct and you are also aware that he is well versed on the topic and just trying to pick a fight. Instead of demanding proof he could have posted recent data showing the ever decreasing size of the polar caps. He can't so he attacks.

---------- Post added at 11:18 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:11 AM ----------

You made an assertion and I asked for a quote. Asking for context isn't splitting hairs. Same for pictures. Of course there will be more ice in the winter then the summer. The context is extremely relevant.
This made me smile and chuckle a bit. Such an innocent comment. Made as if you didn't know the difference between weather and climate. Poor little Sixpointslow needs a tutorial. It's a good thing that we aren't discussing this in person. I know you could not have kept a straight face saying that.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,093 Posts
This is great! :)

You guys are getting a taste of what I get on here every day. The only difference is, EFox aka SixPointSlow and John aka Nova aren't calling you right-wingers, tea-bagger, and that all your sources are discredited right-wing propaganda. :yes

Trust me, they're always right and will not accept anything you post when it opposes their political ideology or whatever. They cannot be shown that anything they believe is wrong, biased, politically slanted, etc. :no

It's fun being able to take a break for once and read the circle-jerk and mental-gymnastics that goes on with these two. :whackylol:

Reps to all who are trying to show them the difference in Capitalism, State Capitalism, etc., that I have tried to do on many occasions here. :foshizzle:

---------- Post added at 02:21 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:10 AM ----------



You're trying to make up your own definitions, Eric. You don't have to keep trying to blur the lines. We all know what Capitalism is. We know what State Capitalism is, etc. Whatever Marxist blog you've been reading, it is corrupting your mind. You've got darn near everyone here trying to tell you what's right and you won't accept it, not even from Websters Dictionary, nor anywhere else. At this point, Karl Marx could come out of the clouds and tell you that you're wrong, but you still probably wouldn't accept it because YOU HAVE TO ALWAYS BE RIGHT AND WIN! :facepalm:
Want to know why they're getting the same treatment as you do? Because they are using the same information sources. You cry that we pick on you in particular when this is an excellent example of how it's not you personally but the sources you hold as truth.

Also, in this case, it's apparent that Eagle, while holding true to his beliefs, is still keeping an open mind to opposing views and is rebutting in a non-condescending, non-confrontational manner unlike your debate style. You are so certain that what you are being fed is the truth you are unflinching in your views or any outside or opposing views regardless of whatever fact gets presented to you.

Again, I invite you to be able to provide factual data that doesn't have an agenda attached to it. You are also more than welcome to debate with "verifiable" factual data that would counter whatever gets posted in rebuttal to your claims.

Your "Obamanomics" thread is an excellent place to start. I have responded in rebuttal with verifiable facts that counter the authors rendition of what is happening in our economy and that you have decided to accept as gospel because it paints the administration in a bad light which has been your end game through out. I know you won't respond because numbers don't lie and I took the numbers that disprove your authors claim directly from the source that they claim their inflated posit came from but, please, I invite you to rebut my post with whatever may counter it's logic.

I will say it again. I have no problem with right wing claims as long as they are based in verifiable factual data but a lot of the crap you post and claim is the undisputed truth is far from it. I've read a lot of sensible conservative viewpoints that have emerged from the party but it seems the only ones you concern yourself with by posting it on here are crazy, extreme right exaggerations or outright lies.

John

---------- Post added at 04:35 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:26 PM ----------

You are correct and you are also aware that he is well versed on the topic and just trying to pick a fight. Instead of demanding proof he could have posted recent data showing the ever decreasing size of the polar caps. He can't so he attacks.
But the onus isn't on him to prove or disprove it regardless of what he knows. You posted a claim. He is asking you to back up your claim with factual data. How is that picking a fight? Is it nitpicking? Possibly but refer back to my post that you agreed with. The devil is in the details. Again, I'm not trying to defend Eric. More so I am trying to keep the debate clean in that whatever claim gets made it should be backed up with verifiable data.

This made me smile and chuckle a bit. Such an innocent comment. Made as if you didn't know the difference between weather and climate. Poor little Sixpointslow needs a tutorial. It's a good thing that we aren't discussing this in person. I know you could not have kept a straight face saying that.
This is bordering on condescending. Let's try and keep the discussion in the factual range and not resort to belittling whoever we are debating by calling them names. "Poor little Sixpoint" does not advance the debate.

John
 

·
Pawsitively sexy
Joined
·
10,564 Posts
Innocent? I'm asking for evidence. You're getting defensive. That is very telling.

My point is that comparing pictures from different seasons doesn't prove ice is expanding or receding. That isn't to say that you don't know that, but you also have shown that you don't read too far into the myth arguments you perpetuate. Unless I have the information to show you're referring to honest comparisons, I can't take your assertion seriously. Just like it's very easy to take a quote out of context, which I suspect you did.

Lets take an example of a myth argument. You've referenced this volcano under Antarctica multiple times as the cause of the land ice melting. The volcano was discovered, it didn't pop into existance. In other words, it's been there for a long time. When you add that relevant context, suddenly you have a significantly less compelling argument. Of course this is under the assumption we are talking about Mount Erebus. I don't know for sure, because you make purposely generalized arguments.
 

·
US Air Force (retired)
Joined
·
13,542 Posts
There you go again. I posted a link to an article on a live volcano. Now you call it inactive. You enjoy this don't you.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,093 Posts
There you go again. I posted a link to an article on a live volcano. Now you call it inactive. You enjoy this don't you.
Please point out where Eric called the volcano inactive. I couldn't find it.

John
 

·
7.62x39 CO2 Cannon
Joined
·
5,055 Posts
Discussion Starter #112
You are well aware there are plenty of satellite pictures and that they are easy to find on the internet. You are just trying to pick a fight. Your tactics are becoming well known. You split-hairs and attack the little things to get the focus off the main topic.



The ice is back on the Great Lakes as well.
Great Lakes are 88% covered with ice

In case you haven't been tuned into the entire discussion. The earth goes through cycles of warming and cooling. They seem to be tied to the Pacific Decadal Oscillation which has roughly a 30 year cycle. That does not mean there isn't global warming. It just means that there are cycles of warming and cooling. There is also a longer-term warming pattern that goes back before the industrial revolution. The planet is still recovering from the little ice age. The longer view also has cycles of warming and cooling. Looking back further, before the little ice age, there were periods when the earth was warmer than now and the oceans were higher than now. They were the Medieval and Roman warm periods.
Exactly the point I've been making here forever. They attack and drag the topics off the rails and then claim they're still on topic. :facepalm:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,093 Posts
Exactly the point I've been making here forever. They attack and drag the topics off the rails and then claim they're still on topic. :facepalm:
I love it. Because we don't help advance your narrative we're "dragging the topic off rails".

I'll use your tactic to disprove the article in question by cherry picking a quote out of the article.

"West Antarctica is also hemorrhaging ice due to climate change,"

I could run with this statement, much like you do, and say that it is the smoking gun that disproves what this articles claims but that would be a false assertion as the context of the rest of the article provides some compelling statements. Do I think these arctic volcanoes have some effect on ice sheet shrinkage? Probably some but the author has also conceded that climate change is also a major factor in it's demise.

John
 

·
7.62x39 CO2 Cannon
Joined
·
5,055 Posts
Discussion Starter #114
Want to know why they're getting the same treatment as you do? Because they are using the same information sources. You cry that we pick on you in particular when this is an excellent example of how it's not you personally but the sources you hold as truth.

Also, in this case, it's apparent that Eagle, while holding true to his beliefs, is still keeping an open mind to opposing views and is rebutting in a non-condescending, non-confrontational manner unlike your debate style. You are so certain that what you are being fed is the truth you are unflinching in your views or any outside or opposing views regardless of whatever fact gets presented to you.

Again, I invite you to be able to provide factual data that doesn't have an agenda attached to it. You are also more than welcome to debate with "verifiable" factual data that would counter whatever gets posted in rebuttal to your claims.


the only ones you concern yourself with by posting it on here are crazy, extreme right exaggerations or outright lies.

John
Your post is a perfect example of your biased ignorance. You point the finger, name call and attack us just for posting an opposing view or argument. Everyone is wrong but you. We can't possibly be right about anything because the media told you everything else is right-wing propaganda and you should shut your eyes and plug your ears. :facepalm:

You don't accept anything you don't already believe. You also don't accept any argument from any source but the ones YOU deem as credible, etc. I still have not seen the list of supposed credible websites I've asked for before that you'll accept. So it is futile to discuss political and environmental topics with such closed minded hostile folks as yourself and Eric Foxwell. All you two do is attack and dodge around the topic if it gets in any area you know you're being proven wrong on and then you two take it off the rails. Every thread goes like this. :facepalm:

Looks like Eagle2000GT is getting a taste of what I get here every day, and oddly, he's coming to the same conclusions I have about you two and your obvious tactics. :yes
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,093 Posts
Your post is a perfect example of your biased ignorance. You point the finger, name call and attack us just for posting an opposing view or argument. Everyone is wrong but you. We can't possibly be right about anything because the media told you everything else is right-wing propaganda and you should shut your eyes and plug your ears. :facepalm:

You don't accept anything you don't already believe. You also don't accept any argument from any source but the ones YOU deem as credible, etc. I still have not seen the list of supposed credible websites I've asked for before that you'll accept. So it is futile to discuss political and environmental topics with such closed minded hostile folks as yourself and Eric Foxwell. All you two do is attack and dodge around the topic if it gets in any area you know you're being proven wrong on and then you two take it off the rails. Every thread goes like this. :facepalm:

Looks like Eagle2000GT is getting a taste of what I get here every day, and oddly, he's coming to the same conclusions I have about you two and your obvious tactics. :yes
Ok John. Like I said before. Go to the Obamanomics thread and respond to my rebuttal. The information source I am using is the same as the one your author used. Let's stay within that parameter of information so that neither of us can refute the others info source. Show me how 100 million people are out of work as the article claims.

I won't hold my breathe.

John
 

·
US Air Force (retired)
Joined
·
13,542 Posts
JohnC, don't get upset. It's a game. They enjoy getting you upset. I have noticed several times that Sixpointslow has a second tactic. He will infer something without actually saying it. He is very good at it and it is a trap. I just fell into that trap and Novanutcase sprung it. Very well played.

In the short time I've been in the clubhouse it seems that Novanutcase is the more intelligent of the two. When he's not game playing with Sixpointslow he actually contributes to the discussion and I have reflected on many of his comments. Sixpointslow is the gadfly. He has nothing to contribute so he sets traps and argues very small nuances. And it is clear that his sole purpose in the discussion is to drag out the discussion and to distract from the main topic.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,093 Posts
JohnC, don't get upset. It's a game. They enjoy getting you upset. I have noticed several times that Sixpointslow has a second tactic. He will infer something without actually saying it. He is very good at it and it is a trap. I just fell into that trap and Novanutcase sprung it. Very well played.

In the short time I've been in the clubhouse it seems that Novanutcase is the more intelligent of the two. When he's not game playing with Sixpointslow he actually contributes to the discussion and I have reflected on many of his comments. Sixpointslow is the gadfly. He has nothing to contribute so he sets traps and argues very small nuances. And it is clear that his sole purpose in the discussion is to drag out the discussion and to distract from the main topic.
While I thank you for your positive assertion of my intellect I think you are speaking from emotion.

Again, you made an assertion and Eric asked you to back it up with fact. That Eric may or may not already know the answer is irrelevant. You made the claim. Back it up.

I'm not trying to be an ass or go against what you have claimed as I have actually learned some new things within your argument that I find have some validity but when you start to move away from fact and move onto how you are being victimized because you are asked to back up your statements your credibility begins to erode. This is the same issue we have with JohnC. I think you have some very good and valid points. Lets stay on those and discuss from a factual basis rather than let this discussion go off the rails because your feelings got hurt.

Let's continue the discussion without personal issues entering into it.

John
 

·
US Air Force (retired)
Joined
·
13,542 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,093 Posts
From the article you posted.....

"Ultimately, it’s apparent the relationship between ozone depletion, climate warming from greenhouse gases, natural variability, and how Antarctic ice responds is all very complicated. In sharp contrast, in the Arctic, there seems to be a relatively straight forward relationship between temperature and ice extent.

Thus, in the Antarctic, we shouldn’t necessarily expect to witness the kind of steep decline in ice that has occurred in the Arctic.

“…the seeming paradox of Antarctic ice increasing while Arctic ice is decreasing is really no paradox at all,” explains Climate Central’s Lemonick. “The Arctic is an ocean surrounded by land, while the Antarctic is land surrounded by ocean. In the Arctic, moreover, you’ve got sea ice decreasing in the summer; at the opposite pole, you’ve got sea ice increasing in the winter. It’s not just an apples-and-oranges comparison: it’s more like comparing apple pie with orange juice.”


John
 

·
7.62x39 CO2 Cannon
Joined
·
5,055 Posts
Discussion Starter #120
JohnC, don't get upset. It's a game. They enjoy getting you upset. I have noticed several times that Sixpointslow has a second tactic. He will infer something without actually saying it. He is very good at it and it is a trap. I just fell into that trap and Novanutcase sprung it. Very well played.

In the short time I've been in the clubhouse it seems that Novanutcase is the more intelligent of the two. When he's not game playing with Sixpointslow he actually contributes to the discussion and I have reflected on many of his comments. Sixpointslow is the gadfly. He has nothing to contribute so he sets traps and argues very small nuances. And it is clear that his sole purpose in the discussion is to drag out the discussion and to distract from the main topic.
I noticed this BS for a long while now. I just don't respond to it anymore. :facepalm:

I'm hoping more level-headed open minded folks start coming in here so we can have real discussion on both sides of the topics instead of "you're a right-wing tea bagger and all your citations are right-wing discredited propaganda" with all the bullshit thread derailing. And then they expect us to respond to it with the patented "I won't hold my breath" at the end. :screwy:
 
101 - 120 of 462 Posts
Top