Author We've Lost So Much Antarctic Ice It's Causing A Dip In Earth's Gravity  (Read 10332 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

We've Lost So Much Antarctic Ice It's Causing A Dip In Earth's Gravity
« Reply #60 on: October 02, 2014, 07:02:51 PM »
Im pretty sure a large meteor hitting the earth could cause some "climate change!" But you green, Gaia worshippers must be almost giddy with ebola. If done right, especially if it could mutate and become airborne,  could help solve this human problem and the earth could finally rid herself of these pesky humans and stop her warming. On the bad side though it would mean no people for you to tax and regulate.
So your position is that meteors cause climate change, but climate change doesn't exist?
And Ebola something, something, something?

We've Lost So Much Antarctic Ice It's Causing A Dip In Earth's Gravity
« Reply #61 on: October 02, 2014, 08:23:22 PM »
RCD I think you've figured it out! Gratz!

We've Lost So Much Antarctic Ice It's Causing A Dip In Earth's Gravity
« Reply #62 on: October 02, 2014, 08:24:39 PM »
So your position is that meteors cause climate change, but climate change doesn't exist?
And Ebola something, something, something?


Because the only way to change peoples mind (Americans) is when death is at their door. Till then you are wasting time and energy. Funny how other countries are preparing for it while we still argue about it. I have classmates from Saudi Arabia, Qatar,UAE, and Bahrain. Why do you think countries rich with oil are sending kids to learn Renewable Energy Technology for free? They get a car and a house while they are here. Why are they willing to spend so much money on these people? Do they know something we do not know? No, they know what everyone knows things are changing and we must move away from oil and they are in a big way. As we sit around with are thumb up are asses trying to debate if it is really or not. But hell we are Americans and we do what the hell we want!! Merica!! Oil and Coal till I die!!1

We've Lost So Much Antarctic Ice It's Causing A Dip In Earth's Gravity
« Reply #63 on: October 02, 2014, 08:29:58 PM »
Wrong. If Fox News stopped with the propaganda and let the science speak people would listen. As it is they're getting conflicting information and since most Americans aren't fouent in science they're being mislead by Faux News talking heads.

We've Lost So Much Antarctic Ice It's Causing A Dip In Earth's Gravity
« Reply #64 on: October 02, 2014, 08:41:28 PM »
Wrong. If Fox News stopped with the propaganda and let the science speak people would listen. As it is they're getting conflicting information and since most Americans aren't fouent in science they're being mislead by Faux News talking heads.

Oh how I agree on the FNN being nothing but a mouthpiece for Oil and Coal. But it is both the Republican and Democrat that are holding everything back when it comes to Renewable Energy. So when you realize that the politicians are one party the greed party. When you understand that you will see why I said what I said!!1   

We've Lost So Much Antarctic Ice It's Causing A Dip In Earth's Gravity
« Reply #65 on: October 03, 2014, 12:39:12 AM »
I love how the media runs with this shit before peer review. As far as I can tell, here's how climate change positions form in the public mind:

An effect is noticed by a scientist. The scientist goes to the media or vice versa. The media sensationalizes the effect. It becomes fact in the mind of the reader. The scientist submits his paper for peer review. It is either rejected or accepted several years later after a general consensus forms within the field. No correction is ever issued by the media regardless of the outcome.

You guys don't actually believe in science, you believe in the media.

No, you're mixing up science with your literary field of science fiction.

We've Lost So Much Antarctic Ice It's Causing A Dip In Earth's Gravity
« Reply #66 on: October 03, 2014, 03:32:42 AM »
No, you're mixing up science with your literary field of science fiction.

There is no difference between my literary field of science fiction and how reporters write articles now. As an author, I am out to compel you. That's rule #1 and that's how I sell books. Reporters are out to sell you articles and hold your interest long enough to not close down the webpage before you hit a link or an advertisement. They now use the same techniques fiction writers do in order to compel people to stay on the page through manipulating the reader's emotions and piquing their interest through a turn of a phrase. This is a very successfull way of making money on a news website--it's how they make their money--but it's not an accurate way for the reader to get true information. None of the shit posted in this thread is peer-reviewed yet Pud, there is every possibility that the data interpretation will be proven wrong at some point, or proven right, through peer review. That usually takes years, but take a look man, it's being presented as automatic fact and accepted as such by the public when the interpretation of the data may well be wrong. If an article from five years ago is wrong, then it's not usually newsworthy to issue a correction. But wrong is wrong. Right?

You're an aircraft guy. Well, if you're an aerospace engineer you can't just say "I've found a way to increase the thrust of a commercial aircraft turbofan engine by 20% with no effect on efficiency! I'm certain I'm right, but my colleagues will just all want to test it and determine if I'm right and do all the safety bullshit, fuck that, I know I'm right and if I tell a reporter before peer review then I have a better chance of it selling more quickly and making some bucks. If it turns out wrong, I've still got the bucks."

Uh huh, you'll fucking kill people in airplane crashes doing that kind of shit, obviously. No one person is ever automatically right. Experiment and consensus establishes what is right. Right?

Well, look at what the climate scientists are doing: they believe that they are automatically right and they believe they have a moral mandate to save humanity so they go the media route instead of the peer review route and, as a result, the vast majority of the common people's climate change beliefs end up based on media articles sensationalized from the statements of scientists that have not yet presented their work for peer review. That is not normal science, you do no get away with such things in physics or engineering, instead that is activism distorted by the media into a monster. Just look, compare the articles cited in this thread with how the discovery of the Higgs boson is being treated, in climate science articles it's taken automatic fact, but in regards to the boson, caveats are still making it through that they may or may not have found it, instead it's probable that they found it but not yet proven. No such standards are being applied here, instead climate change is affecting gravity.

Fact and science should be king. Not the media's sensationalism. I've told you before, I am not a climate change denier. If you pump enough carbon dioxide into the Earth's atmosphere, you will eventually create a greenhouse effect. That greenhouse effect may not be a bad thing, or it might be. Objective study is needed to determine that like the rest of science does. But I'm not faced with that, I'm sitting here looking at kneejerk reactions that cost billions, unsolvables like India and China's dramatically increasing carbon footprints that outstrip the west's really expensive attempts at curbing emissions, crooks like Al Gore and the reporters sensationalizing it to make a quick buck according to a business model, and media-driven hysteria, and above all I'm faced with fucking politics and the ultimate level of bullshit that it foists upon us . . . come on man, this would not work in aviation. This is bullshit where people are sticking their hand in an unscientific cash pie and trying to pull out whatever they can. Come on, I read an article today where your doctors and NHS people are looking to medicate people that drink two glasses of wine a day, despite science telling us for the last two decades that two glasses of wine a day is keeping the French from dying of heart disease despite their shit diet. Oh like that's not a ploy from a drug company trying to sell the NHS anti-alcoholism medications by inventing a fake problem. Fuck.

All of this works through people buying into a narrative. It would change the world if people realized that when they read a news article, they are reading a narrative, just like a science fiction book. The media is a just narrative. It always has been, reporters harangued and precipitated the American and French revolutions, or how about Yellow Journalism? Yet y'all buy it as fact to this day automatically, well, unless it came from Fox News and it's pandering--using the same techniques--to the right.

You guys need to quit being fucking buffoons. Learn how to spot a narrative.

We've Lost So Much Antarctic Ice It's Causing A Dip In Earth's Gravity
« Reply #67 on: October 03, 2014, 04:02:18 AM »
I'll point out another example. A few weeks ago Obama said that it was highly unlikely that Ebola would ever make it to the US. Well, it's here now, and if the health officials in Texas don't PERFECTLY handle it, then we're in some deep trouble (so far they have not handled it very perfectly). In two weeks we went from impervious and nothing to worry about, according to Obama, to confronting what he called unlikely. Well, who the fuck misinterpreted the science then? Science says that it's a virus and betting that airport officials in Monrovia will weed out all threat of Ebola entering the US by asking on a form if that person had been exposed to Ebola and then expecting that such a tactic would be 100% effective 100% of the time in protecting the US from infection backed only by the threat that Liberia will charge you with a felony if you lie (what's a lie when you can slip the official a few bucks?) if you happen to survive. So yeah, we have a foreign national exposed to at least 100 Americans that might get the disease or not, dying of Ebola in a Texas hospital. Nice job protecting us Obama.

Yet the president sends 3000 military people to Africa, exposing them to infection, and won't restrict flights from the affected countries despite a problem already making itself evident.

So where's the science now? Why aren't the so-called liberals demanding that their governments accept settled science--you can't get any more settled than virus transmission--and issuing the cessation of flights from countries flying from countries experiencing the Ebola epidemic? It's because liberals are paralyzed by political correctness and cant act effectively because of it, all driven by the media narrative.

We've Lost So Much Antarctic Ice It's Causing A Dip In Earth's Gravity
« Reply #68 on: October 03, 2014, 04:17:15 AM »
According to those hacked emails, East Anglia intentionally destroyed the raw data they'd collected, specifically so skeptics couldn't analyze it.  They don't even dispute the fact that some of it was 'altered' and 'not retained' - just the degree to which it was done, and the reasons for it.  If I remember correctly, none of it was peer reviewed.

Regarding the current status of the original data, here's an article from the NY Times trying to give East Anglia the benefit of the doubt and printing their responses.  Keep in mind this is them being show at their best, by a friendly news outlet. 

It seems to me that what any reasonable person would conclude from this - and from all the rest of the reports about what went on at East Anglia - that we cannot just take these people's word for it.  Not when there are billions, if not trillions, of dollars at stake, as well as the potential deindustrialization of the industrialized and emerging countries.  We deserve better from these 'scientists', their political allies, and their friends in the Media.

http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2009/10/14/14greenwire-scientists-return-fire-at-climate-skeptics-in-31175.html

We are being lied to by the people who always lie to us.


Forbes Magazine is a little more widely respected than the various 'right-wing' web sites, so I'll link to an opinion piece from them.  Unlike the NY Times, they aren't trying to cover for EA

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2011/11/23/climategate-2-0-new-e-mails-rock-the-global-warming-debate/

If this is so cut and dried - if it's truly 'Settled Science' - why the lies, the cover ups, the data destruction, the refusal to allow skeptics to review the data, ect, etc?  And why the F is Al Gore involved - could there be a worse spokesman for a cause?

We've Lost So Much Antarctic Ice It's Causing A Dip In Earth's Gravity
« Reply #69 on: October 03, 2014, 04:34:13 AM »
Here's an asshat now linking Ebola to Global Warming.  Professor of Medicine from USC and a 'CBS Medical Correspondent', a Dr David Agus.

I know people don't like Breitbart, but it's on video (almost at the end of the clip).

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2014/10/01/CBS-Medical-Correspondent-Climate-Change-Linked-to-Ebola-Child-Paralysis-Virus

... “CBS This Morning” co-anchor Charlie Rose asked how that particular virus, in addition to the Ebola virus, have been able to spread in recent weeks.

“Well, the world is flat,” Agus explained. “Right now, anybody can get on a plane and end up anywhere in this country and spread these viruses. And we have to be aware of it. We don't know exactly why there was a dramatic spread this year. But something is happening now. We have multiple viruses. And together with global climate change, things are changing in the virus world and we have to pay attention.”



Apparently these people will do and say anything to continue and add to their narrative (it's now 'Global Disruption', perfesser, get with the program).

That's another thing, these experts keep changing what it even is - first it was Global Cooling, then...  Is it a wonder people who are skeptical of these scares in the first place, and aren't inclined to trust the type of people who are put it out there (Media, Government, the Left), simply don't believe them?

We've Lost So Much Antarctic Ice It's Causing A Dip In Earth's Gravity
« Reply #70 on: October 03, 2014, 04:39:44 AM »
Wrong. If Fox News stopped with the propaganda and let the science speak people would listen. As it is they're getting conflicting information and since most Americans aren't fouent in science they're being mislead by Faux News talking heads.


There's actually plenty of people at Fox that wholeheartedly buy into global warming. Bill O', the king of Fox, far more liberal than he is conservative, has said on numerous occasions that there probably is something to it, and favors steps to curb carbon emissions. Greta is another one. Shepard Smith, who runs a straight news show, is a solid Democrat and believer. Geraldo. Mr liberal himself, is a rock-solid believer of global warming.

Those folks are just a few that have their own shows that are in the believer camp. There are many many others that appear regularly on Fox News segments that are believers in global warming, climate change, whatever. So, this nonsense about "Faux News", is just a little disingenuous.

We've Lost So Much Antarctic Ice It's Causing A Dip In Earth's Gravity
« Reply #71 on: October 03, 2014, 04:45:56 AM »
... favors steps to curb carbon emissions...


If they got off this nonsense and instead talked about the environment, the health of the planet, the oceans, the ground water, and so on - things that are actually being degraded - most would find that compelling and want to do their part to help.  But there's no tax money in that, no individual Liberty to seize, not much in the way of government growth, no cash for Al Gore and his friends. 

There might not even be any forced deindustrialization.


We've Lost So Much Antarctic Ice It's Causing A Dip In Earth's Gravity
« Reply #72 on: October 03, 2014, 05:03:09 AM »

If they got off this nonsense and instead talked about the environment, the health of the planet, the oceans, the ground water, and so on - things that are actually being degraded - most would find that compelling and want to do their part to help.  But there's no tax money in that, no individual Liberty to seize, not much in the way of government growth, no cash for Al Gore and his friends. 

There might not even be any forced deindustrialization.


yeah, I am all for a sensible approach to limit the amount of crap that we pump into the environment. For instance, what would be wrong with using natural gas? We have plenty of it and it's relatively clean. There are plenty of common sense approaches to caring for the environment, without sacrificing efficiency.

It's just going to take some time. I actually made a prediction years ago -- I wrote it down in a journal -- that before my children reach the age of 50,  the use of petroleum-based energy products in this country, will be a relic of the past. I stand by that prediction.

We've Lost So Much Antarctic Ice It's Causing A Dip In Earth's Gravity
« Reply #73 on: October 03, 2014, 06:01:38 AM »
According to those hacked emails, East Anglia intentionally destroyed the raw data they'd collected,


Oh that old chestnut. Still don't let reality get in the way of fact... You could just as easily have found out the whole story but it would undo your argument then...oh well.

We've Lost So Much Antarctic Ice It's Causing A Dip In Earth's Gravity
« Reply #74 on: October 03, 2014, 06:03:49 AM »
Here's an asshat now linking Ebola to Global Warming. 

Once again, take it out of context; the climate can affect how and which viruses thrive or die. Still, never mind...

We've Lost So Much Antarctic Ice It's Causing A Dip In Earth's Gravity
« Reply #75 on: October 03, 2014, 06:06:43 AM »

yeah, I am all for a sensible approach to limit the amount of crap that we pump into the environment. For instance, what would be wrong with using natural gas? We have plenty of it and it's relatively clean. There are plenty of common sense approaches to caring for the environment, without sacrificing efficiency.

It's just going to take some time. I actually made a prediction years ago -- I wrote it down in a journal -- that before my children reach the age of 50,  the use of petroleum-based energy products in this country, will be a relic of the past. I stand by that prediction.

I've been a proponent of natural gas my entire adult life -- precisely for environmental reasons.   I think that is the most important change we can make.

One of my professors showed us all a graph back in the early 90s which was actually already decades old at the time, or so I understood.  It showed every 20 years or so, without fail, a new main energy source is introduced.  Actually I forget the timeline.  Might have even been logarithmic.   Unfortunately I haven't ever been able to find it again since I lost my notes. 

Anyway, each new energy source follows the exact same growth curve, ultimately displacing the previous one and growing beyond it as we use more and more energy.  Wood, coal, oil, natural gas, and nuclear fission were shown on the graph, and another one which was in such an early phase we couldn't identify it at that time (probably it will turn out to be solar). 

As I recall, natural gas was set to overtake oil around the year 2000.  I honestly don't know if that has happened but because oil would be approaching it's peak (in relative terms anyway) our professor predicted all sorts of price instabilities.  We have certainly seen that.

Nuclear is an interesting one.  It has been all over the place -- with a big push for awhile, and then a big pull back.  But ultimately even with all its bouncing around, it still settled around the predicted curve.

So I think you are right to a point.  I don't think we will stray from that graph and any political push one way or the other is just a short term aberration.  From recollection it doesn't show fossil fuels as gone in 50 years, but certainly diminished in importance in the whole energy cocktail.

We've Lost So Much Antarctic Ice It's Causing A Dip In Earth's Gravity
« Reply #76 on: October 03, 2014, 06:19:56 AM »
Once again, take it out of context; the climate can affect how and which viruses thrive or die. Still, never mind...

Of course it can. 

But even you know linking Ebola to Global Warming is a lie, pure horseshit.

We've Lost So Much Antarctic Ice It's Causing A Dip In Earth's Gravity
« Reply #77 on: October 03, 2014, 06:21:33 AM »

Oh that old chestnut. Still don't let reality get in the way of fact... You could just as easily have found out the whole story but it would undo your argument then...oh well.


Yeah, that old chestnut.  Sorry I left off the part where their cronies came in and said the emails and the rest were all made up.

This link was just to show how phony their own excuses sound regarding the destroyed data

We've Lost So Much Antarctic Ice It's Causing A Dip In Earth's Gravity
« Reply #78 on: October 03, 2014, 06:21:46 AM »
Of course it can. 

But even you know linking Ebola to Global Warming is a lie, pure horseshit.

I don't know about Ebola per se, but global warming causes tropical insects and disease to move north.  You don't have to look any farther than our dead pine forests in British Columbia to see that effect.

We've Lost So Much Antarctic Ice It's Causing A Dip In Earth's Gravity
« Reply #79 on: October 03, 2014, 06:25:27 AM »
I don't know about Ebola per se, but global warming causes tropical insects and disease to move north.  You don't have to look any farther than our dead pine forests in British Columbia to see that effect.


The point was he didn't have any more proof of what he was saying than any of the rest of them do.  They make it up as they go along.

We've Lost So Much Antarctic Ice It's Causing A Dip In Earth's Gravity
« Reply #80 on: October 03, 2014, 06:40:28 AM »

The point was he didn't have any more proof of what he was saying than any of the rest of them do.  They make it up as they go along.

So I don't understand.  You're saying he has no evidence that climate change is affecting virus populations?  I haven't reviewed papers on that subject so I don't know what the scientific support is for that.  Is he just a general doctor they use for commentary or is he a virologist?  In any case, it was a comment on a news program and not a scientific paper so I don't see how it illegitimatizes the evidence for climate change and global warming.

We've Lost So Much Antarctic Ice It's Causing A Dip In Earth's Gravity
« Reply #81 on: October 03, 2014, 08:57:38 AM »
Here's an asshat now linking Ebola to Global Warming. 

Shit just got worse.  New article today blaming the Ebola/Global Warming link on George W. Bush, AND the it concludes by saying, "And oh yeah, fuck Reagan too!"

We've Lost So Much Antarctic Ice It's Causing A Dip In Earth's Gravity
« Reply #82 on: October 03, 2014, 04:54:43 PM »
Shit just got worse.  New article today blaming the Ebola/Global Warming link on George W. Bush, AND the it concludes by saying, "And oh yeah, fuck Reagan too!"


It all makes sense now

We've Lost So Much Antarctic Ice It's Causing A Dip In Earth's Gravity
« Reply #83 on: October 04, 2014, 02:43:31 AM »
I find it interesting that there seems to be a limit on how much clean energy we're allowed to have. We're allowed by the libs to pursue expensive, problematic energy sources such as wind farms. Yet if you say the word "nuclear" they go apeshit, and more interestingly the word "fusion" also causes a stroke (in liberals that even know about it) even though fusion energy is the ultimate in clean energy. It's opposed because it has the capacity to make cheap, limitless energy and that would allow the further expansion of human civilization. If the rank and file libs really understood how climate change response is really geared toward environmentalism and restricting human progress, liberalism as it is today would collapse.

We've Lost So Much Antarctic Ice It's Causing A Dip In Earth's Gravity
« Reply #84 on: October 04, 2014, 02:53:34 AM »
I find it interesting that there seems to be a limit on how much clean energy we're allowed to have. We're allowed by the libs to pursue expensive, problematic energy sources such as wind farms. Yet if you say the word "nuclear" they go apeshit, and more interestingly the word "fusion" also causes a stroke (in liberals that even know about it) even though fusion energy is the ultimate in clean energy. It's opposed because it has the capacity to make cheap, limitless energy and that would allow the further expansion of human civilization. If the rank and file libs really understood how climate change response is really geared toward environmentalism and restricting human progress, liberalism as it is today would collapse.

I take it all the companies, engineers, scientists, shareholders in said companies who are involved in all you've mentioned are 'libs'? Makes sense, because as we all know, the stock market invests in non profit making (as in liberal/ anti capitalist) ventures...

But to take you seriously for a second (because I'm sure you're taking the piss), your simplification of life is endearing, it's obviously complete crap, but endearing...do carry on.

We've Lost So Much Antarctic Ice It's Causing A Dip In Earth's Gravity
« Reply #85 on: October 04, 2014, 03:01:39 AM »
Dammit, my resistance of trolling this thread is futile!

Okay, back to the original premise, about melting ice causing dips (other than Noory) in gravity.  I give you that mass affects gravity (did I mean effects?) and I am sure that a bit melting somewhere or another would affect gravity at that specific location, but at what SCALE?

Heavens to Betsy!  That sort of claim is about as reliable as the claim that if the Earth's CO2 levels rise too much more, we'll have bubbling seas of Coca-Cola (again at what scale do we need to see CO2 overtake N2 to make that sort of claim even addressable?)  or if Coke is not your thing 7up?

No evidence, no graphs nothing but a video:

Original 7-Up "Un-cola Nuts" ad

Not the one I was looking for, but it serves...

We've Lost So Much Antarctic Ice It's Causing A Dip In Earth's Gravity
« Reply #86 on: October 04, 2014, 12:53:18 PM »
I find it interesting that there seems to be a limit on how much clean energy we're allowed to have. We're allowed by the libs to pursue expensive, problematic energy sources such as wind farms. Yet if you say the word "nuclear" they go apeshit, and more interestingly the word "fusion" also causes a stroke (in liberals that even know about it) even though fusion energy is the ultimate in clean energy. It's opposed because it has the capacity to make cheap, limitless energy and that would allow the further expansion of human civilization. If the rank and file libs really understood how climate change response is really geared toward environmentalism and restricting human progress, liberalism as it is today would collapse.

You got a fusion reactor running?  Sign me up!  (And I'm a liberal.)

Fission, however, not so much.  Fukushima concerns me.

We've Lost So Much Antarctic Ice It's Causing A Dip In Earth's Gravity
« Reply #87 on: October 04, 2014, 12:58:04 PM »
You got a fusion reactor running?  Sign me up!  (And I'm a liberal.)

Fission, however, not do much.  Fukushima concerns me.


Hey buddy, we know that 'libs' are against fusion. Even the scientists who are trying to get a fusion reactor developed are all libs and therefore dragging their heels working on it.. Damn liberal/ commie/ Marksist/ Alansky/ liberal, Maoistssss, liberal libs.

We've Lost So Much Antarctic Ice It's Causing A Dip In Earth's Gravity
« Reply #88 on: October 04, 2014, 01:03:15 PM »
You got a fusion reactor running?  Sign me up!  (And I'm a liberal.)

Yah, it's not really the "libs" who are impeding progress towards that fusion energy-making thingy.

We've Lost So Much Antarctic Ice It's Causing A Dip In Earth's Gravity
« Reply #89 on: October 04, 2014, 01:08:37 PM »
You got a fusion reactor running?  Sign me up!  (And I'm a liberal.)

Fission, however, not do much.  Fukushima concerns me.
If we could get past the human factor (building stuff on the cheap, terrorism, and corporate interests who always want to build big. Good luck.) I would think small reactors but many more of them would be the way to go. (Think nuclear ice-breakers, air-craft carriers, and submarine size reactors with similar security.) That size could still power a small city but could be protected enough (or possibly even mobile to an extent?) Until we get the fusion thing for reliable power-generation possible. Of course, even if we could eliminate terror threats we would still have to deal with the waste which is a big concern.