Himalayan glaciers maintaining size over past decade.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
01-03-2012, 05:14 PM (This post was last modified: 01-03-2012 10:50 PM by mysticjbyrd.)
RE: Himalayan glaciers maintaining size over past decade.
We both know its not going to hurt the corporations. They will simply raise their prices and slide the bill on down to the consumer like always. Just another complete failure aspect of capitalism.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-03-2012, 12:55 PM (This post was last modified: 03-03-2012 12:57 PM by Chas.)
RE: WTF?
(28-02-2012 08:35 AM)bemore Wrote:  
(28-02-2012 02:57 AM)mysticjbyrd Wrote:  The problem here is people like you, who knows almost nothing on the subject think you should get a vote. as if science has to accommodate the idiots who know nothing about it. Science is not a democracy! Just because you were born does not give you a right to voice your opinion on the matter. If people would learn this, we would all be far better off.

Sorry but I dont share your "faith" in believing everything that the goverment spouts.....because it is quite evident that the only thing to come out of all this is more taxation.

Im sorry but with all of the amazing technological advances that this earth has enjoyed over the last 100 years you mean to tell me that NO ONE EVER....not yet come up with alternatives to using oil???

So they can fiddle with DNA.....they can mutate viruses.....they have the LHC in CERN smashing particles together trying to discover the secrets of the universe..........yet we still have such a reliance on oil???

MONEY MONEY MONEY MONEY MONEY MONEY MONEY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Don't be ignorant - it's not the fucking government, it's scientists. They don't all work for Uncle Sam, in fact very few do.
(28-02-2012 08:37 AM)germanyt Wrote:  LOL. You're a fuckin idiot.



And I know exactly how my toaster works.

But you don't know how the climate works.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Chas's post
03-03-2012, 02:33 PM
RE: Himalayan glaciers maintaining size over past decade.
I believe this, you believe that, he believes another thing, and she believes it's all wrong.

Conclusion?

We don't know. But we are believers. Smile

[Image: dobie.png]

Science is the process we've designed to be responsible for generating our best guess as to what the fuck is going on. Girly Man
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Dom's post
03-03-2012, 02:48 PM
RE: Himalayan glaciers maintaining size over past decade.
Chas.....Like I said in a previous post I just dont see how money is going to be a soloution to all this......Maybe the extra cost will force companies to innovate to cleaner energy and become more efficient with what they do..... but we are gonna have to pay for all of this.

Yes somebody will have to pay for it I know......Its just with billions of "secret" loans that the fed gave out I just dont trust those bastards with the money.

For no matter how much I use these symbols, to describe symptoms of my existence.
You are your own emphasis.
So I say nothing.

-Bemore.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-03-2012, 03:45 PM
RE: Himalayan glaciers maintaining size over past decade.
(03-03-2012 02:48 PM)bemore Wrote:  Chas.....Like I said in a previous post I just dont see how money is going to be a soloution to all this......Maybe the extra cost will force companies to innovate to cleaner energy and become more efficient with what they do..... but we are gonna have to pay for all of this.

Yes somebody will have to pay for it I know......Its just with billions of "secret" loans that the fed gave out I just dont trust those bastards with the money.

There is no surprise here. Pollution and environmental damage have always been hidden costs of industry. Before federal regulation, industry didn't pay for the damage - the public just suffered the effects. In the 20th century, the public paid for clean-up.
If an industry can't profitably do business in an environmentally righteous way, they shouldn't be in that business. This is why conservatives are anti-regulation. Environmental regulation will cost them money directly. And it should. They need to pay their own way and not expect the rest of us to clean up their messes.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Chas's post
03-03-2012, 04:03 PM
RE: Himalayan glaciers maintaining size over past decade.
(03-03-2012 03:45 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(03-03-2012 02:48 PM)bemore Wrote:  Chas.....Like I said in a previous post I just dont see how money is going to be a soloution to all this......Maybe the extra cost will force companies to innovate to cleaner energy and become more efficient with what they do..... but we are gonna have to pay for all of this.

Yes somebody will have to pay for it I know......Its just with billions of "secret" loans that the fed gave out I just dont trust those bastards with the money.

There is no surprise here. Pollution and environmental damage have always been hidden costs of industry. Before federal regulation, industry didn't pay for the damage - the public just suffered the effects. In the 20th century, the public paid for clean-up.
If an industry can't profitably do business in an environmentally righteous way, they shouldn't be in that business. This is why conservatives are anti-regulation. Environmental regulation will cost them money directly. And it should. They need to pay their own way and not expect the rest of us to clean up their messes.

Cant disagree with that.

For no matter how much I use these symbols, to describe symptoms of my existence.
You are your own emphasis.
So I say nothing.

-Bemore.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-03-2012, 08:32 AM (This post was last modified: 07-03-2012 08:39 AM by mysticjbyrd.)
RE: Himalayan glaciers maintaining size over past decade.
(03-03-2012 04:03 PM)bemore Wrote:  Cant disagree with that.

Yet you asked this?!

(01-03-2012 04:06 PM)bemore Wrote:  They just want money........through taxs that will be passed onto you, me and everybody else.

irregardless of wether the science is correct or not can somebody please explain to me how money is going to save the planet???

Caus obv im missing something here???

Anybody???

Who are they? The government? Because the government is not a person. It is not a greedy little douchebag that tries to accumulate wealth, those are the American aristocrats.

Like I said before, the only way to get off fossil fuels is to make the green technologies more appealing, thus cheaper. The only way to make green technology cheaper is to make fossil fuels more expensive, thus taxes.

As Chas said, and you agreed to, the govt, aka the people, is already paying the bill to clean up their messes. The money is just kind of getting shuffled around differently, but its not actually any different from what is happening today. The only difference is that the initial cost of using fossil fuels increases. But again, as far as the people are concerned that price increase is just happening in the front end, rather in the back end when we have to clean it up.

Ohh and I hate the argument about the corporations just passing the buck off onto the consumers. Its not even an argument, it is a damn threat from some overpaid corporate douchebags who refuse to take a penny less this year than they made last year. Hell they will probably just raise the price twice whats needed to cover the new taxes, and give themselves a raise and a fatter bonus, in other words business as usual.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-03-2012, 08:59 PM
RE: Himalayan glaciers maintaining size over past decade.
@ the OP

So someone published a paper in Nature saying data from the Grace satellite indicates glacial melt in the Himalayas is lower than expected. I’m curious as to your thought process before you pronounced this paper another nail in the coffin of anthropogenic climate change. Did you check the peer reviews? Did you compare the Grace data to other sources to see if it is in line with what other sources say is happening with the glaciers in the Himalayas? No? I didn’t think so.

Well here is little of what you missed. The peer review process isn’t going well. This paper tells a story quite a bit different than the one found in the glacier by glacier mapping found in the GLIMS and ICIMOD databases. Grace has problems with small glaciers. As a result the conclusions presented in this paper need to be validated, and so far that validation is not working out for the conclusion presented on the glaciers in the Himalayas.

Save a life. Adopt a greyhound.

[Image: anigrey.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Popeye's Pappy's post
16-03-2012, 07:30 AM
RE: Himalayan glaciers maintaining size over past decade.
(15-03-2012 08:59 PM)Popeyes Pappy Wrote:  @ the OP

So someone published a paper in Nature saying data from the Grace satellite indicates glacial melt in the Himalayas is lower than expected. I’m curious as to your thought process before you pronounced this paper another nail in the coffin of anthropogenic climate change. Did you check the peer reviews? Did you compare the Grace data to other sources to see if it is in line with what other sources say is happening with the glaciers in the Himalayas? No? I didn’t think so.

Well here is little of what you missed. The peer review process isn’t going well. This paper tells a story quite a bit different than the one found in the glacier by glacier mapping found in the GLIMS and ICIMOD databases. Grace has problems with small glaciers. As a result the conclusions presented in this paper need to be validated, and so far that validation is not working out for the conclusion presented on the glaciers in the Himalayas.

Even so. Melting glaciers is not indicitave of 'man made' climate change.

“Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect.”

-Mark Twain
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-03-2012, 04:26 PM
RE: Himalayan glaciers maintaining size over past decade.
(16-03-2012 07:30 AM)germanyt Wrote:  
(15-03-2012 08:59 PM)Popeyes Pappy Wrote:  @ the OP

So someone published a paper in Nature saying data from the Grace satellite indicates glacial melt in the Himalayas is lower than expected. I’m curious as to your thought process before you pronounced this paper another nail in the coffin of anthropogenic climate change. Did you check the peer reviews? Did you compare the Grace data to other sources to see if it is in line with what other sources say is happening with the glaciers in the Himalayas? No? I didn’t think so.

Well here is little of what you missed. The peer review process isn’t going well. This paper tells a story quite a bit different than the one found in the glacier by glacier mapping found in the GLIMS and ICIMOD databases. Grace has problems with small glaciers. As a result the conclusions presented in this paper need to be validated, and so far that validation is not working out for the conclusion presented on the glaciers in the Himalayas.

Even so. Melting glaciers is not indicitave of 'man made' climate change.

Actually the sustained loss of old surface ice is indicative of “man made” climate change. So is ocean acidification, extreme weather events and oh yea, the god damned temperature keeps going up. These are all indications of anthropogenic climate change. By themselves they don’t prove people are the cause of raising temperatures, but we have empirical evidence that human activity is responsible for the changes we are seeing. 

Earth’s climate responds to forcing agents. These agents include the sun, albedo and green house gases. We know that CO2 is a green house gas, and we have direct observations that humans are raising the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. That is affecting the planet’s energy budget. Earth is receiving more energy than it is radiating back into space. Simple physics tells us that the temperature will go up until we reach an equilibrium point and energy out equals energy in.

Sticking your head up your ass to cover your ears and shouting “Ron Paul” over and over so that you can’t  hear what scientists are telling us about global warming doesn’t change the facts. 

Save a life. Adopt a greyhound.

[Image: anigrey.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: