No Global Warming, No Co2, No Glaciers Melting, No Oceans Rising!

[amicus]

I repost my last Post on this Thread: http://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?t=772755 in the event you might like to observe the genesis of this one and perhaps to pick up a few additional commentators, the more the merrier and who knows, maybe some new perspectives or even an awakening to the reality of the Global warming hoax perpetrated upon your innocent souls:

Now that I have dispensed with the CO2 hysteria rampant among the Greenies, let us move on to two more sacred cows of the Left, Glacial Melting and Ocean Level rises...both fallacies, both refuted as the Gobal Warming Farce is being exposed and the chicks are coming home to roost:

http://bruderheim-rea.ca/warming10.htm

Melting glaciers, shrinking polar ice and rising oceans?

Quote:
And the receding glaciers on Earth, that are in accelerating retreat all over? The melting polar ice caps? The rising sea levels?

Well, first of all, the sea levels are not rising. The mean sea level was established and marked in 1841 at the Isle of the Dead, in Port Arthur, Tasmania, Australia. There has been no rise in the sea level since then, at best only a very small rise, no more than 1.6 cm or just a little less than two-thirds of an inch during all of the last century. A good case is being made for the claim that during the total interval since 1841 the mean sea level even fell a little. John L. Daly (deceased), science advisor to the Greening Earth Society, resided in Tasmania and investigated the history of the mean-sea-level marker there....



And as to the retreating glaciers, according to Dr. Landscheidt, the World Glacier Monitoring Network in Zurich identifies that "presently 55% of the glaciers in high latitudes are advancing compared with 5% around 1950...

Let's consider exhaustive and in-depth studies of northern glaciers. The Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change reports that the northern glaciers in the world that should, according to the climate alarmists, be in rapid melt-down, do nothing of the sort. Especially during the past few decades some of them have been advancing and others exhibit a marked slowing down of the rate at which they had been retreating during the first half of the 20th century.
Taken together, these observations from high northern latitudes, where CO2-induced global warming is supposed to be most evident, provide no evidence for that dreaded phenomenon. In fact, they suggest that nothing out of the ordinary is occurring at all. Hence, we once again have a situation where the predictions of today's best climate models fail to conform to reality.

—Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change

The summary from which that quote was taken contains links to additional summaries of studies of northern regions of glaciation or of specific glaciers:

1. In a review of "the most current and comprehensive research of Holocene glaciation," along the northernmost Gulf of Alaska between the Kenai Peninsula and Yakutat Bay, Calkin et al. (2001) report there were several periods of glacial advance and retreat over the past 7000 years. ...

2. Subsequent to this time [the last half of the 19th century], as the planet emerged from the depths of the Little Ice Age, the mass balance records of the 18 Arctic glaciers with the longest observational histories were studied by Dowdeswell et al. (1997). ...."ice-core records from the Canadian High Arctic islands indicate that the generally negative glacier mass balances observed over the past 50 years [when the vast majority of the CO2 resulting from human activities entered the atmosphere] have probably been typical of Arctic glaciers since the end of the Little Ice Age [our italics]," when the magnitude of anthropogenic CO2 emissions was a whole lot less than it has been from 1950 onward.

3. Additional evidence that the Arctic's glaciers are not responding to human-induced warming comes from the studies of Zeeberg and Forman (2001) and Mackintosh et al. (2002), who indicate there has been an expansion of glaciers in the European Arctic over the past few decades.

4. Other glacier observations that run counter to climate model predictions are discussed by Mackintosh et al. (2002), who concentrated on the 300-year history of the Solheimajokull outlet glacier on the southern coast of Iceland. In 1705, this glacier had a length of about 14.8 km; and by 1740 it had grown to 15.2 km in length. Thereafter, it began to retreat, reaching a minimum length of 13.2 km in 1783. Rebounding rapidly, however, the glacier returned to its 1705 position by 1794; and by 1820 it equaled its 1740 length. This maximum length was maintained for the next half-century, after which the glacier began a slow retreat that continued to about 1932, when its length was approximately 14.75 km. Then it wasted away more rapidly, reaching a second minimum-length value of approximately 13.8 km about 1970, whereupon it began to rapidly expand, growing to 14.3 km by 1995.



~~~

Now...I am taking bets as to how many Posts it takes before one of the Left Liberal Intellectual Elites comes up with a counter link and assaults my source material. Then of course, let slip the dogs of slippery spin doctoring as the accusations will fly far and wide smudging all along the way.

I may as well slap the faces of most of the ladies present by indicting all the bunny and bambi lovers, remnants of the free love generation with misplaced maternal instincts who fall faint at the sight of Lamb chops, as the instigators of this mass hypnosis of dooms day scenarios where evil men destroy the world in their avarice and greed and Adam Smith is pilloried again as the father of Capitalism, I.E. the FREE market.

I am sorry, ladies, but since you got the vote and you have, ahem, 'thrust ' yourselves upon the political world and changed it to suit your sensitive noses and psyche's, things have literally gone to hell in a handbasket. We always knew the ladies were more sensitive, kinder and gentler, ( I think Bush was Bi), and prone to fainting spells and emotional outbursts, but we never considered they would take that extreme emotionalism into the market place and pulbic policy, but Good God Almighty, they have, and with a vengeance.

For the fluffy bimbo's among us, who just like anonymous titillation and are seduced into believing what the persuasive majority imposes upon them and truly believe all the poppycock of the Global Warming Hysterectomy, I apologize for the wake-up call to reality...but...it is long overdue.

As you are now indeed an equal partner in all things good and bad, drop the cute little curtsies and man up...or be the female you really are and STFU!

der amicus....(ya gotta love it!)

__________________

 

[off2bed]

Cue the stasis deniers...

 

[stephen55]

I conclude that you are a moron and I predict that you will disagree. I also predict that you will continue to be a moron.

That didn't take long...

 

[kbate]

John Maynard Keynes - Male - advocate for Welfare state - pre-suffrage
Karl Marx - Male - advocate for Communism - pre-suffrage
Theodore Roosevelt - Male - advocate for welfare state - pre Suffrage
Franklin Roosevelt - Male - New Deal
Adolph Hitler - Male - Genocide, National Socialism, Fascism
Mao Zedong - Male - Cultural Revolution
Joseph Stalin - Male - Statist - purges.
Vladimir Lenin - Male - Statist - Communist Revolutionary - Purges.

Ayn Rand- Female - Wrote books worshipped by Amicus Stupidass

 

[Bert Notorius]

Ozone is so yesterday.

 

[amicus]

John Maynard Keynes - Male - advocate for Welfare state - pre-suffrage
Karl Marx - Male - advocate for Communism - pre-suffrage
Theodore Roosevelt - Male - advocate for welfare state - pre Suffrage
Franklin Roosevelt - Male - New Deal
Adolph Hitler - Male - Genocide, National Socialism, Fascism
Mao Zedong - Male - Cultural Revolution
Joseph Stalin - Male - Statist - purges.
Vladimir Lenin - Male - Statist - Communist Revolutionary - Purges.

Ayn Rand- Female - Wrote books worshipped by Amicus Stupidass

~~~

Geez, usually the FemiNazi's go all out to prove that women were influential throughout History in all disciplines....flip flop to suit your argument? Goodoh! Solipsism at the very best, eh?


ami

 

[thør]

Ozone is so yesterday.

Psst!

Wanna buy some R12?

 

[Bert Notorius]

Psst!

Wanna buy some R12?

I have a freezer full of the good stuff out in the garage just in case.

 

[thør]

I have a freezer full of the good stuff out in the garage just in case.

145#er's!

 

[DevilishTexan]

Yeah, no duh. But Gore continually craves relevance.

 

[cebalrai]

How come you don't reference legit, peer-reviewed research in your arguments?

 

[Peregrinator]

~~~

Geez, usually the FemiNazi's go all out to prove that women were influential throughout History in all disciplines....flip flop to suit your argument? Goodoh! Solipsism at the very best, eh?


ami

You've misused solipsism.

 

[amicus]

How come you don't reference legit, peer-reviewed research in your arguments?

~~~

You should know that as axiomatic.

Read Trysail's copy and paste peer reviewed technical analysis of issues and if you can force yourself to plod through them, you will end up more confused than when you started reading.

I did 30 years of radio and newspaper jounalism and I quickly learned the large words and complex arguments bored people to death and they didn't listen or read or learn anything from my rather expansive vocabulary and reference material.

You will find embedded in my reference material the stuff you crave, be my guest at clicking on the links and reading to your hearts' content, very few others will.

What I do is try to communicate with others and the success of my career and my Threads indicate that I accomplish that quite well, eh?

Amicus

 

[amicus]

You've misused solipsism.

~~~

Yes, I know, thank you. I looked it up before I typed it...the word just seemed so right and I felt the need to use it...I was not expecting anyone to notice, my apologies...perhaps you would suggest a replacement word? None would pop for me and solipsism just wouldn't quit circling around in me noggin.

regards..

ami

 

[radepor]

Are you not watching?

Are you looking at the same satellite pictures I am? The one's that show Arctic ice melting at alarming rates over the last 20 years. Are you playing ostrich and just burying you head in the ice - oops, sorry, there no ice left to bury your head in, is there. My bad.

If all the ice in the Arctic and Anarctica melt, it's not a problem for you, is it? I now see I'm just too nervous, all I need to do is simply ignore the problem, like you, and it will simply go away.

I repost my last Post on this Thread: http://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?t=772755 in the event you might like to observe the genesis of this one and perhaps to pick up a few additional commentators, the more the merrier and who knows, maybe some new perspectives or even an awakening to the reality of the Global warming hoax perpetrated upon your innocent souls:

Now that I have dispensed with the CO2 hysteria rampant among the Greenies, let us move on to two more sacred cows of the Left, Glacial Melting and Ocean Level rises...both fallacies, both refuted as the Gobal Warming Farce is being exposed and the chicks are coming home to roost:

http://bruderheim-rea.ca/warming10.htm

Melting glaciers, shrinking polar ice and rising oceans?


__________________

 

[Peregrinator]

~~~

Yes, I know, thank you. I looked it up before I typed it...the word just seemed so right and I felt the need to use it...I was not expecting anyone to notice, my apologies...perhaps you would suggest a replacement word? None would pop for me and solipsism just wouldn't quit circling around in me noggin.

regards..

ami

I'm not sure what you were trying to say to kbate. I don't know what the argument is about, but I do know her post was in no way solipsistic at all.

 

[miles]

Now that MMGW has ben debunked, what anti-capitalist man made doom and gloom hocus pocus will the Left cook up next?

I like the idea of a Gravity Crisis caused by oil drilling in the Middle East. They've sucked so much out of the ground that the Eastern Hemisphere has become lighter and changed the planet's rotation. If we don't act soon entire cities will fly off into the atmosphere. We could kill two birds (no offense Perg) with one stone: immediately stop drilling for oil and throw open our borders to 150 gazillion gravity refugees. Of course that wouldn't be logical, but we're talking about saving the planet. The debate is over. Scientists agree.

Just my $.02.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Now that MMGW has ben debunked....<DERP SNIP>

Ben hasn't debunked anything, Herr Judenazi

 

[miles]

By the way, this crisis can be averted by purchasing Gravity Credits from me for $25 each. It's a small price to pay to ensure that future generations will be able to enjoy the planet long after we're gone. It's your responsibility to reduce your Gravity Footprint by purchasing one Gravity Credit for each ten pounds of personal body weight. In exchange for your $25 I will Fed Ex one pound of dirt or rocks to Saudi Arabia.

Honest.

Please send cash to Miles c/o Literotica. No Credit cards accepted.

 

[mercury14]

~~~

You should know that as axiomatic.

Read Trysail's copy and paste peer reviewed technical analysis of issues and if you can force yourself to plod through them, you will end up more confused than when you started reading.

I did 30 years of radio and newspaper jounalism and I quickly learned the large words and complex arguments bored people to death and they didn't listen or read or learn anything from my rather expansive vocabulary and reference material.

You will find embedded in my reference material the stuff you crave, be my guest at clicking on the links and reading to your hearts' content, very few others will.

What I do is try to communicate with others and the success of my career and my Threads indicate that I accomplish that quite well, eh?

Amicus

Your reference material is fake. Always been. Try using legitimate, respected sources.

By the way, I've been waiting weeks for you to back your argument that "kindergarten psychologically devastates children and their parents". You know, you flat out said in that thread that you back everything you say. How come you didn't back this whopper?

And how much longer do I have to wait? I mean you were REALLY insistent on this claim, even going as far as deriding anyone who questioned you. I think it's time you backed your claim.

 

[warrior queen]

What I do is try to communicate with others and the success of my career and my Threads indicate that I accomplish that quite well, eh?

Amicus

interesting that you continuously quote your career, yet hide behind the anonymity of your lit handle.

and do I take it that from the second part of your statement you actually judge yourself based on the number of responses you get in a lit thread?!
i find that sad.

 

[amicus]

Your reference material is fake. Always been. Try using legitimate, respected sources.

By the way, I've been waiting weeks for you to back your argument that "kindergarten psychologically devastates children and their parents". You know, you flat out said in that thread that you back everything you say. How come you didn't back this whopper?

And how much longer do I have to wait? I mean you were REALLY insistent on this claim, even going as far as deriding anyone who questioned you. I think it's time you backed your claim.

~~~

You are a loser, Mercury14, and out and out loser and your every Post confirms that observation. I wonder, but am not curious enough to ask your special interest in childhood education or even your level of expertise. Education is not a science, it is an art, and as such, there are no hard and fast formula's or equations or even graphs to display to satisfy your silly questions.

Each child is different and an individual, which is, I think, the deciding factor in your opposition to my thesis, you loathe seeing people as unique individuals and you believe they should all be treated exactly the same...in education as in life, complete egalitarianism.

For anyone else reading this, who has a sincere interest in your own child or for general information concerning early education and the possible harmful effects on young children:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/educatio...he-best-age-to-send-your-child-to-school.html

Compulsory school start ages vary enormously worldwide. In Northern Ireland, children are obliged, according to the law, to start school at four. In England, Scotland and Wales, however, the age is five, as it is in the Netherlands and Australia. In Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, France and Spain, it is six and in Sweden, it is seven. Why the difference? And is there an optimum time to begin school – is there a point at which a child’s brain is ready to begin soaking up the three Rs, and are we effectively wasting our time – and theirs – by applying premature pressure on children?

Absolutely, says Greg Brooks, professor of Education at Sheffield University, who believes “totally unnecessary pressure is put on young children” as a result of shoe-horning them into schools at an age when they might not be ready. All children develop differently. For example, he says: “There is no universally best age to start learning to read. Some people learn to read so easily they can’t remember doing it.”

Mercury14's mindset might accommodate a blind or deaf child, maybe, he might understand the difference and alter the form and style of education, but in his drive for complete equality, I doubt it.

To those of you who love and care for your child; treat them as they are, an unique and special individual and if they are not ready for schooling until age eight, then fight like hell to keep them out of that prison cell of mandatory education at age X, by government edict.

Amicus

 

[Sonny Limatina]

"Science are easy. I can interpret the data as good as any scientist. All scientists are tools of the machine. Because they make money, they cannot be trusted. If you want to know the real story, you need to ask a non-scientist with no access to the data and very little idea what scientists actually do all day. Like, say, me!"

Did I get the OP about right, without reading?

 

[warrior queen]

"Science are easy. I can interpret the data as good as any scientist. All scientists are tools of the machine. Because they make money, they cannot be trusted. If you want to know the real story, you need to ask a non-scientist with no access to the data and very little idea what scientists actually do all day. Like, say, me!"

Did I get the OP about right, without reading?

you forgot to mention his incredibly awesome career.
apparently, it matters.

 

[amicus]

Nope.