Welcome to PatsFans.com

Open Water at the North Pole?

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by patsfan13, Jul 1, 2008.

  1. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,867
    Likes Received:
    108
    Ratings:
    +239 / 8 / -13

    http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=299718849952830



    So the melting in the Arctic isn't due to the domesticated primates, rather natural process...BTW last MArch the ice cover was 14M km2, most EVER measured...the Antarctic ice shelf is also growing.

    meanwhile...



    Let's check the source of global warming and cooling.


    [​IMG]


    Well no sunspots today....
    Last edited: Jul 1, 2008
  2. DarrylS

    DarrylS PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    41,788
    Likes Received:
    180
    Ratings:
    +364 / 11 / -27

    I always find it interesting when publications do not have anyone getting credit for such an editorial.... would be interested in knowing who wrote it.
  3. Harry Boy

    Harry Boy Look Up, It's Amazing PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2005
    Messages:
    40,198
    Likes Received:
    196
    Ratings:
    +667 / 2 / -9

    There was 6ft of snow in my yard last February, it's all gone.

    GOD DAMN AMERICA
  4. BelichickFan

    BelichickFan B.O. = Fugazi PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    31,626
    Likes Received:
    216
    Ratings:
    +509 / 13 / -11

    #24 Jersey

    None of their articles are credited individually. I'm guessing whoever wrote it has more scientific knowledge that Algore. The reality, as we've been saying for a long time, is there are way more variables to "global warming", both known and unknown, that the MMGW simpletons would like to admit.
  5. PatriotsReign

    PatriotsReign On the Roster

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Messages:
    26,649
    Likes Received:
    142
    Ratings:
    +383 / 3 / -15

    Last edited: Jul 1, 2008
  6. BelichickFan

    BelichickFan B.O. = Fugazi PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    31,626
    Likes Received:
    216
    Ratings:
    +509 / 13 / -11

    #24 Jersey

    The point many of us have been trying to make is that NO ONE KNOWS. Granny Pelosi says it's "settled science". When, in fact, it's not. That's what we've been saying all along - quit trying to get into my bank account and lifestyle when you have no idea whether what you're doing will help or hurt. How can their be a "Global Warming Tax" when you don't know what causes global warming, what to do to fix it and what to spend the tax money on.

    It's lunacy.
  7. DarrylS

    DarrylS PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    41,788
    Likes Received:
    180
    Ratings:
    +364 / 11 / -27


    And you can guess this based on ????
  8. BelichickFan

    BelichickFan B.O. = Fugazi PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    31,626
    Likes Received:
    216
    Ratings:
    +509 / 13 / -11

    #24 Jersey

    Because it's a very low standard to know more that Algore.
  9. DarrylS

    DarrylS PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    41,788
    Likes Received:
    180
    Ratings:
    +364 / 11 / -27

    Gee that makes perfect sense, you can deduce this based on an unsigned editorial.. this could be someone's doctoral thesis or could be done by a group of people.. the reality is that you are comparing Al Gore to an unknown anonymous entity. You might be comfortable with that, but inquiring minds might want to know who wrote it before it attains a whole lot of credibility.
  10. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    18,081
    Likes Received:
    190
    Ratings:
    +265 / 10 / -11

    Any peer reviewed articles supporting the theory presented in the unsigned editorial?

    There are of course always other things taking place on earth, and they certainly have an affect, but that's why scientists tend to prefer peer reviewed studies, rather than rely on political organizations (be it the conservative Cato Institute, which is cited in the article, or Al Gore) for their information.

    But, as long as we're now listening to Woods Hole, let's look at what they have to say about global warming:

    http://www.whrc.org/resources/online_publications/warming_earth/index.htm

    Or do you only trust them when they suit your political objective?

    Here's an article from a couple days ago on the state of the Arctic, from a Murdoch paper:

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article4232375.ece
    Last edited: Jul 1, 2008
  11. BelichickFan

    BelichickFan B.O. = Fugazi PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    31,626
    Likes Received:
    216
    Ratings:
    +509 / 13 / -11

    #24 Jersey

    Stupid Liberals, they always poo poo the source unless it's a liberal source then it's God's Word. Although the article doesn't have an official bibliography, the names of organizations from where they got their information is scattered throughout.
  12. BelichickFan

    BelichickFan B.O. = Fugazi PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    31,626
    Likes Received:
    216
    Ratings:
    +509 / 13 / -11

    #24 Jersey

    Surely that was a rhetorical question you were asking yourself.
  13. DarrylS

    DarrylS PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    41,788
    Likes Received:
    180
    Ratings:
    +364 / 11 / -27

    Thanks for the kind comments.. is it stupid to question a source.. better than being a right wing sheeple.. if it criticizes Gore it must be good and true, even though we do not know who wrote it. talk about stupid.. unbelievable, does every discussion with a rightie have to descend into name calling..
  14. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    18,081
    Likes Received:
    190
    Ratings:
    +265 / 10 / -11

    No, it's a question I'm asking the global warming deniers. After all, most scientists believe in mmgw, including the Wood Hole Institute cited in the editorial. I don't understand why you must politicize the issue. I'm on the side of science, while people like you and pf seem to regularly post editorial and non-peer reviewed articles. Why not post some hard science that's been peer reviewed or posted in scientific journals and magazines?

    And, as I've asked others, who do you trust for your science information in general? What magazines, for instance? Can you answer that? Did you ever read science before this issue came up?
  15. BelichickFan

    BelichickFan B.O. = Fugazi PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    31,626
    Likes Received:
    216
    Ratings:
    +509 / 13 / -11

    #24 Jersey

    You are the ones claiming you know everything. MMGW is not known fact, it's not settled science regardless of what you want to think. I am not, and never did, claim that article is "correct"; we don't know. What I am claiming is that only a fool thinks he's right when he really has no idea. If that makes you a fool, so be it.
  16. BelichickFan

    BelichickFan B.O. = Fugazi PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    31,626
    Likes Received:
    216
    Ratings:
    +509 / 13 / -11

    #24 Jersey

    I don't keep a list of what I read to produce when you ask for it. I have a perfectly open mind when it comes to science and am capable of understanding it - heck, I got a minor in Physics along with my Computer Science degree, I'm no physicist but I can make my way around a science article or book. And I've come away thoroughly unimpressed with the "proof" of man made global warming.

    Heck, I never got an answer as to why the warming over the past 50 years was virtually identical to the 50 years before that (when carbon emissions from vehicles was basically zero). Before you ask for a source, it was from an article linked here months ago, I don't know where it is anymore.
  17. otis p. driftwood

    otis p. driftwood Rookie

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2008
    Messages:
    5,271
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    You know...if you just watch these threads and don't feel it necessary to get involved, they're really quite amusing.

    I must say it's interesting, we've got a couple of guys here with Physics backgrounds (a minor counts) and they're both disbelievers in algore's wonder world.

    Things that make you say "hmmmm...."

    The funniest part of that is--they're also both strongly in favor of developing alt. energy from renewable clean sources--to the extent that one of them has said over and over he'd support a tax increase if it went solely to that.
  18. BelichickFan

    BelichickFan B.O. = Fugazi PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    31,626
    Likes Received:
    216
    Ratings:
    +509 / 13 / -11

    #24 Jersey

    I mostly want to see the middle east shrivel on the vine as their only source of income dries up - my motives aren't altogether well meaning :)
  19. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    18,081
    Likes Received:
    190
    Ratings:
    +265 / 10 / -11

    Well, of course you can't answer that because chances are any publication you red prior to the mmgw issue believes in mmgw today. As I've said before, I'm not a scientist, so I rely on the preponderance of evidence and the magazines I've trusted over the years, especially Scientific American.

    Perhaps you can find some evidence here:

    http://images.google.com/images?um=1&hl=en&q=global warming trend&btnG=Search Images
  20. DarrylS

    DarrylS PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    41,788
    Likes Received:
    180
    Ratings:
    +364 / 11 / -27

    This is the problem, you tend to lump everyone together based on what you perceive to know.. while in reality whether you are considered a liberal or a conservative, both tags have a wide range of beliefs.. you can be a liberal and not believe in MMGW, you can be a conservative and believe in MMGW.. the issue is not your political leanings, it is how you come to believe what you do.. to take an anonymous blog and believe it, it flat out unscientific aka stupid. This is not a defense of Gore, it a defense of the critical thinking process...

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>