[LightStarr]

juggernaut juggernaut:

who's are enemies? U.S.A? Britain?

Greenland. They've had it to good for far to long.

[Zipperfish]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

LightStarr LightStarr:

Does the wobble lead into the Poles changing places? They do that every so often do they not?

No, the poles don't swap, the Magnetic Poles swap. Magnetic North will become Magnetic North (if that doesn't sound quite right, remember the North pole is Magnetic South right now), and vice versa, every 60,000 to 100,000 years or so. The orientation of the Earth won't change.

The process is caused by the molten core rotating, and that rotation changes. When the poles reverse, (in theory anyway) there will become many (10 or more) Magnetic North and Magnetic South poles that will change rapidly in the span of 50 - 100 years.

Sure...that's what the left-wing scientists want you to believe. But if you look at the historical record it's clear that the Earth is flat and the there is giant mountain of lodestone in the middle of it (what the round-earthers would have you believe is the "North Pole").

[LightStarr]

Hahaha Zipper, you're such a kidder.

Imagine if the Earth was flat though. We wouldn't have a trash problem we could just push it off the edge and wave bye. Although it it was flat we would certainly lose our water would we not?

[BartSimpson]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

I think the first five words of your response said it all.

Pretty much.

Yesterday was a nice sunny day and today it's raining.

Maybe it's raining because, in my omnipotence, I had the fireplace going last night and that magically caused a rainstorm proving to me just how all-powerful I am.

The true-believing global warming crowd is about as much to me: a bunch of powerless people who gain some personal satisfsaction over the idea that they can control....control the global climate by doing or not doing something. For these people global warming and the environment have supplanted the place of religion in their lives. They believe with an unflinching and unknowing faith that quite honestly puts most professing Christians to shame.

The rest of them are just opportunists who are using it for self-enrichment (algore) or to advance their political agendas (oh, also algore ).

[Zipperfish]

A lot of people concerned about climate change care about the future of the planet and the state of affairs they'll be leaving to their children and their children's children. A lot of us like to listen to scientists when they tell us things because, overall, they tend to be quite reasonable people, at least compared to politicians.

I think you are confusing science and faith. Science is absed on scientific method, which is a very rational and logical way of looking at things. Faith, on the other hand, does not depend on logic or science. It's a trans-rational phenomena. So it's a bit misleading when you say that people accept the science on faith.

Really, your trying to turn the tables on the whole thing. Scientists, based on their rational analysis, are trying to tell us something. A lot of them--most of them--are saying that CO2 emissions from burning fossil fuels are resulting and will result in higher average temperatures down the road, wiht commensurate impacts. If you reject what they say based on ideology--as many on the right-wing do--then that is more of a faith-based response if you ask me.

It would be one thing if you were to say (and some on the right are saying this) "Yes climate change is real and it may well be nasty, but the remedy of avoiding climate change may be worse than the disease." That, to my mind, is a rational argument. That's the discussion that should be happening right now. Accusing the left of manufacturing this whole thing, given all the science available, is just a silly tactic to my mind.

And I should say, Bart, that I apologize for being supercilious in my earlier response. I know that you do care and care deeply about your fellow man, but that, due to your political suasion, your methods for making life better for tomorrow don't necessarily correlate with mine. If we start assuming that those politically opposed to us don't care about others--as I implied in my last post--we're all doomed.

[BartSimpson]

Zip, I appreciate your response. I know you care, too.

The problems I run into with the global warming thing are multi-fold and I'm just not so quick to buy into any scientific fads until they have survived the backlash of scrutiny.

Global Warming (human causation) has yet to undergo the requisite backlash of scrutiny. If it survives this and actual evidence starts to accumulate then maybe my mind will change.

Right now there is a lot of data and a lot of conclusions, but scant actual evidence.

Glaciers are retreating over the past 100 years.

Yes, and they were retreating before that and sometimes much more dramatically.

The site of the city of Juneau, Alaska, for instance, was buried under ice when Captain Vancouver visited it. The retreat of the glacier (in terms of cubic kilometres) was much more dramatic from 1750-1800 when the glacier lost approximately 180 cubic Km of mass as opposed to 1946 to present when it has lost a little less than .21 cubic Km of mass.

Why are we so excited about glacial retreats in the present when they are exponentially far less dramatic than the retreats of the mid to late 1700's?

I keep hearing about rising sea levels yet when I visit the hewn granite docks of Salem, Massachussetts the high tide mark of 1699 is no higher or lower than that of 2007.

I do remember that it used to be said that sea levels at Oahu, Hawaii were rising, but then research showed the island was actually sinking into the ocean as the lava dome that used to be beneath it was now under the Big Island.

Sea levels in much of the Sunshine Coast are falling..but, again, that's because the land is rising.

I'm a practical guy and the old Occam's Razor applies for me in everything.

If the world is warming then it is probably due to the sun.

Before I get excited about that I need only visit Yosemite to see proof that not so long ago ice enshrouded so much of California and Nevada.

It's all gone.

Obviously, the world warmed up to melt all that ice.

Most climatologists agree that we're still in the post-ice-age warming cycle.

So I am not so eager to get alarmed that the world is warming because, well, we knew that.

I'm also not eager to jump to the conclusion that there is a significanthuman contribution to global warming and I am nearly offended at the arrogance that we can somehow slow what most climatologists can be cajoled into admitting is something that would happen with or without human intervention.

Again, I do advocate reducing pollution just because that's a noble pursuit on it's own.

But not because we're facing Hollywood's view of a climate disaster:





and another fine work of fiction....