You think that they are the same thing?

I simply accepted what I understood to be your premise… or foundational statement, “Weather does not equal climate.” I cannot therefore, be suggesting that weather and climate are interchangeable terms with the same meanings.

 

What I do question is the frenzied zealotry determined to lay any and all changes upon human activities. We have been told that the science is “settled”… the verdict is in… the judgment is final. THIS is what I dispute.

 

No one has yet forwarded a sensible explanation of how the WWII aircraft Glacier Girl became entombed under 270 feet of ice, south of the Arctic Circle during the precise 50 year period we are told that global warming escalated at an exponential rate.

 

No one has yet explained how the ocean has not risen measurably if Arctic ice is indeed melting at a regular rate. (I can help with this one… it’s because Antarctic ice is growing at a record pace. It’s because the earth tilts at a 23 degree angle from the sun… allowing us to experience seasons on an annual basis. It's because climate changes occur as a result of solar seasonal periodicity measured in decades.)

 

I realize it is terribly out of fashion… but I believe in a Designer who thought out all these potential problems and provided redundancies, backups and defaults in the system that keep things in balance and ensures that life is possible. I am not an advocate for fouling our nest… especially on purpose… but I do not believe any of the panic being raised by Gore, et. al. is grounded fully in reality. It is a shameless, politically (greed) motivated attempt to shift power, control, freedom and uncountable physical resources.

 

The fact that so few truly understand the science behind this panic is precisely what makes it possible to perpetuate the misinformation. The fact that dissenting opinions and inquiries are met with stern resistance rather than the openness “true science” not only welcomes, but demands tells me this is less “science” and more a politically motivated ideology. :thumb:

I simply accepted what I understood to be your premise… or foundational statement, “Weather does not equal climate.” I cannot therefore, be suggesting that weather and climate are interchangeable terms with the same meanings.

 

What I do question is the frenzied zealotry determined to lay any and all changes upon human activities. We have been told that the science is “settled”… the verdict is in… the judgment is final. THIS is what I dispute.

 

No one has yet forwarded a sensible explanation of how the WWII aircraft Glacier Girl became entombed under 270 feet of ice, south of the Arctic Circle during the precise 50 year period we are told that global warming escalated at an exponential rate.

 

No one has yet explained how the ocean has not risen measurably if Arctic ice is indeed melting at a regular rate. (I can help with this one… it’s because Antarctic ice is growing at a record pace. It’s because the earth tilts at a 23 degree angle from the sun… allowing us to experience seasons on an annual basis. It's because climate changes occur as a result of solar seasonal periodicity measured in decades.)

 

I realize it is terribly out of fashion… but I believe in a Designer who thought out all these potential problems and provided redundancies, backups and defaults in the system that keep things in balance and ensures that life is possible. I am not an advocate for fouling our nest… especially on purpose… but I do not believe any of the panic being raised by Gore, et. al. is grounded in reality. It is a shameless, politically (greed) motivated attempt to shift power, control, freedom and uncountable physical resources.

 

The fact that so few truly understand the science behind this panic is precisely what makes it possible to perpetuate the misinformation. The fact that dissenting opinions and inquiries are met with stern resistance rather than the openness “true science” not only welcomes, but demands tells me this is less “science” and more a politically motivated ideology. :thumb:

There you go being uninformed.

I simply accepted what I understood to be your premise… or foundational statement, “Weather does not equal climate.” I cannot therefore, be suggesting that weather and climate are interchangeable terms with the same meanings.

 

What I do question is the frenzied zealotry determined to lay any and all changes upon human activities. We have been told that the science is “settled”… the verdict is in… the judgment is final. THIS is what I dispute.

 

No one has yet forwarded a sensible explanation of how the WWII aircraft Glacier Girl became entombed under 270 feet of ice, south of the Arctic Circle during the precise 50 year period we are told that global warming escalated at an exponential rate.

 

No one has yet explained how the ocean has not risen measurably if Arctic ice is indeed melting at a regular rate. (I can help with this one… it’s because Antarctic ice is growing at a record pace. It’s because the earth tilts at a 23 degree angle from the sun… allowing us to experience seasons on an annual basis. It's because climate changes occur as a result of solar seasonal periodicity measured in decades.)

 

I realize it is terribly out of fashion… but I believe in a Designer who thought out all these potential problems and provided redundancies, backups and defaults in the system that keep things in balance and ensures that life is possible. I am not an advocate for fouling our nest… especially on purpose… but I do not believe any of the panic being raised by Gore, et. al. is grounded fully in reality. It is a shameless, politically (greed) motivated attempt to shift power, control, freedom and uncountable physical resources.

 

The fact that so few truly understand the science behind this panic is precisely what makes it possible to perpetuate the misinformation. The fact that dissenting opinions and inquiries are met with stern resistance rather than the openness “true science” not only welcomes, but demands tells me this is less “science” and more a politically motivated ideology. :thumb:

 

I don't want to argue over wording, but "Accepting your premise...then how can this be true?" followed by presenting something that you take to be a contradiction, did not seem like a convincing agreement with what I was saying.

 

As it pertains to the "Glacier Girl," a scientific investigation would need to be applied to this, not just the "well, A is true, then B must be false" type of logic that you are applying here. I certainly don't have the necessary information to come to any conclusion on the issue.

 

Additionally, I start tuning out as soon as politics start being discussed as related to this issue. I just turned off FoxNews for the same reason.

I don't want to argue over wording, but "Accepting your premise...then how can this be true?" followed by presenting something that you take to be a contradiction, did not seem like a convincing agreement with what I was saying.

 

As it pertains to the "Glacier Girl," a scientific investigation would need to be applied to this, not just the "well, A is true, then B must be false" type of logic that you are applying here. I certainly don't have the necessary information to come to any conclusion on the issue.

 

Additionally, I start tuning out as soon as politics start being discussed as related to this issue. I just turned off FoxNews for the same reason.

The problem is the whole thing is politically driven.

The problem is the whole thing is politically driven.

 

Perhaps. But the topic has been on my radar since the mid 80s...long before I knew who Al Gore was. My point is that, as far as I know, its foundation did not start out politically. Additionally, as with most things, it's being politicized on both sides.

Edited February 10, 201016 yr by True blue (and gold)
"it's" changed to "its"

Additionally, as with most things, it's being politicized on both sides.

That's for sure! Al hijacked it, and ever since, it's been a political rugby match.

We're all going to die...

I don't want to argue over wording, but "Accepting your premise...then how can this be true?" followed by presenting something that you take to be a contradiction, did not seem like a convincing agreement with what I was saying.

 

As it pertains to the "Glacier Girl," a scientific investigation would need to be applied to this, not just the "well, A is true, then B must be false" type of logic that you are applying here. I certainly don't have the necessary information to come to any conclusion on the issue.

 

Additionally, I start tuning out as soon as politics start being discussed as related to this issue. I just turned off FoxNews for the same reason.

I see the confusion I created here. It is my fault for wording it the way I did.

 

Allow me to be as clear as possible (for me anyway):

 

• I accept your statement that, "Weather does not equal climate."
  
• I understand and agree that weather can in the short term exhibit characteristics seemingly out of phase with longer term climate trends. No argument or contention here.
  
• Your point as I take it is... we cannot point to a snow storm, a frigid week or even a frigid month or year as proof that the climate is not warming overall.
  

My question is... if the climate is in fact warming... and has been over the past century… and if the past 50 years are indeed warming at an exponential rate as proposed... and if arctic ice is melting faster than it is being replaced... how is it possible that an aircraft south of (and presumably warmer than) all the Arctic ice that’s melting could be buried in 270 feet of ice during the same 50 years we’re told are the worst global warming years on record? This simply does not fit the “Global Warming” assertions as presented by Al Gore.

 

As a science teacher, are you not bothered by those who claim the “science is settled” when it is clear there are dissenting opinions and evidence?

I see the confusion I created here. It is my fault for wording it the way I did.

 

Allow me to be as clear as possible (for me anyway):

 

• I accept your statement that, "Weather does not equal climate."
  
• I understand and agree that weather can in the short term exhibit characteristics seemingly out of phase with longer term climate trends. No argument or contention here.
  
• Your point as I take it is... we cannot point to a snow storm, a frigid week or even a frigid month or year as proof that the climate is not warming overall.
  

My question is... if the climate is in fact warming... and has been over the past century… and if the past 50 years are indeed warming at an exponential rate as proposed... and if arctic ice is melting faster than it is being replaced... how is it possible that an aircraft south of (and presumably warmer than) all the Arctic ice that’s melting could be buried in 270 feet of ice during the same 50 years we’re told are the worst global warming years on record? This simply does not fit the “Global Warming” assertions as presented by Al Gore.

 

As a science teacher, are you not bothered by those who claim the “science is settled” when it is clear there are dissenting opinions and evidence?

 

Thanks for the clarification.

 

Again, to answer your question, more information is needed. There would be many factors that would need to be examined before any conclusion can be reached. You are simply looking at things from a predetermined standpoint...that global warming cannot be happening if this plane is buried in ice...that the area should be melting, not refreezing.

 

Let me speculate...meaning I have NO knowledge of the situation, but how it possibly COULD happen. Is it possible that the rate of ice formation in that area in which the plane was abandoned is slowing down? Meaning...without global climate change it might have been under 300+ feet of snow? It seems that you (this is the first that I have heard of this plane) want to believe that it shouldn't have any ice on it, if global warming it true.

 

I'll have to say that continuing to see Gore brought up in every post (I know that I have mentioned him, to show my disdain for intermingling of politics and science from BOTH sides) makes me want to stay out of this thread, like so many others that I avoid.

 

As a matter of fact, as a science teacher I am MOST bothered by the politicization of the issue.

I've been interested in environmental issues long before I knew who Al Gore is, and long, long before the current political fracas that is the debate over Climate Change.

 

As I've stated often enough before, it doesn't take a rocket scientist or a meteorologist or any other sort of scientist to understand that the industrialization and mobilization of the world has adverse effects on the ecosystem and the climate and pretty much every other -ism, and -system. All you have to do is open your eyes and look around you.

 

I feel no shame in my concern, and refused to be derided as though naive in the "realities" of the world.

 

From a religious perspective, there is a responsibility to take care of the Earth, and to practice good stewardship for generations to come.

 

Again, no shame here in feeling as strongly as I do about the issue.

I've been interested in environmental issues long before I knew who Al Gore is, and long, long before the current political fracas that is the debate over Climate Change.

 

As I've stated often enough before, it doesn't take a rocket scientist or a meteorologist or any other sort of scientist to understand that the industrialization and mobilization of the world has adverse effects on the ecosystem and the climate and pretty much every other -ism, and -system. All you have to do is open your eyes and look around you.

 

I feel no shame in my concern, and refused to be derided as though naive in the "realities" of the world.

 

From a religious perspective, there is a responsibility to take care of the Earth, and to practice good stewardship for generations to come.

 

Again, no shame here in feeling as strongly as I do about the issue.

Just for that, I'm stealing your avatar.

 

 

And I feel no shame about it! :banana:

I liked this part best:

 

That is good. I guess reasonable means being wrong about half the time.

We're all going to die...

 

.......but not from global warming.

 

http://www.globalwarminghysteria.com/ten-myths-of-global-warming/

This is a religion for some; and they will not be "reasoned" out of it.

I've been interested in environmental issues long before I knew who Al Gore is, and long, long before the current political fracas that is the debate over Climate Change.

 

As I've stated often enough before, it doesn't take a rocket scientist or a meteorologist or any other sort of scientist to understand that the industrialization and mobilization of the world has adverse effects on the ecosystem and the climate and pretty much every other -ism, and -system. All you have to do is open your eyes and look around you.

 

I feel no shame in my concern, and refused to be derided as though naive in the "realities" of the world.

 

From a religious perspective, there is a responsibility to take care of the Earth, and to practice good stewardship for generations to come.

 

Again, no shame here in feeling as strongly as I do about the issue.

Can we cause pollution? Yes. Do we in this country do a good job of making the environment clean? YES. Can we cause the change of the weather or the rise of the temperatures? Heck NO.

The whole climate change thing, or whatever the progressives want to call it these days, is a load of a baloney and is nothing more than a total shake down.