The Ice Cap actually has grown this year by 500,000 square miles....
Jack, are you referring to the fact that last year's melt was the biggest ever, and so even though current coverage is below average, it is larger than last year?
But here's what Fred didn't quote from the article linked:
'It is a neck-and-neck race between 2007 and this year over the issue of ice loss,' said Mark Serreze, of the US National Snow and Ice Data Centre in Boulder, Colorado. 'We thought Arctic ice cover might recover after last year's unprecedented melting - and indeed the picture didn't look too bad last month. Cover was significantly below normal, but at least it was up on last year.
'But the Beaufort Sea storms triggered steep ice losses and it now looks as if it will be a very close call indeed whether 2007 or 2008 is the worst year on record for ice cover over the Arctic. We will only find out when the cover reaches its minimum in mid-September.' [. . .]
'It does not really matter whether 2007 or 2008 is the worst year on record for Arctic ice,' Maslowski said. 'The crucial point is that ice is clearly not building up enough over winter to restore cover and that when you combine current estimates of ice thickness with the extent of the ice cap, you get a very clear indication that the Arctic is going to be ice-free in summer in five years. And when that happens, there will be consequences.'
As for cool weather in northern latitudes (including here), one of the consequences of releasing ice from the pole is that the cool water works its way south and disrupts traditional weather patterns, including possibly cooling areas that normally are a little warmer. I'm not saying I know for sure what caused this year's weather (no one is), but "global warming" does not mean that everyone gets hotter every year.
JIJAWM, clearly I deserve it. After all, I sent Fred an email whose body consisted only of a URL. The subject line was "Time for another arctic ice post?" Obviously, I have brought the insults--like Fred's return email to me, which started by calling me a "monumental idiot"--by suggesting that recent storms and developments in the arctic might warrant an update on Fred's series.
For the record Jay I'm tired of you and all your liberal pals. I get attacked just about daily just for grins from you and your lefty pals. I should just smile and say thank you very much after being kickied in the teeth time and time again?
I've tried to have a more civil debate but do you know what? You can not have a civil debate with liberal haters, they ain't interested.
And you are a monumental idiot Jay because you know that my previous posts were in repsonse to a report that the ice would all melt THIS year. You send something about a new report claiming the same thing in 5 and want to draw a parallel?!? Let me clue you in on something, one does not equal five.
I would think a teacher might know that.
Now Jay go and find for me one instance where you have gotten on your leftie pals for calling me and other far worse than a "monumental idiot". Guess what it doesn't exist.
Take your selective outrage and go enjoy the rest of your vacation on my dime.
Hey... what happened to JIJAWM's comment? You can call Jay an idiot, but JIJAWM can't call you hateful for that?
The name calling around here does seem to be mean spirited. Some might characterize it as hateful. I would think someone that labeled someone else the "king of hate" would be tolerant of such a label... guess not.
Payback thrid way, I don't like being called a hater by a hater, go see what he wrote about me on Mathias' site on something I had nothing to do with.
Be a prick to me then I should ignore it?
I'm done with that crap.
This from the guy who called me what you did?
I'm tired of taking and taking.
Get a mirror.
You are certainly entitled to smack back, but how do you expect people to react when you post something where you repeatedly call someone an idiot?
If you don't want people to react to your writing with disrespect don't write disrespectful things. (I should have been a 3rd grade teacher).
Agreed - I also banned JIJAWM from my blog.
I'm not going to take this crap any more. Until Jay, 3rd way, JIJAWM and the rest of the global warming alarmists stop driving their cars, using their computers, and live a totally green life - then I'd give it some consideration.
But no. It's perfectly fine for Al Gore and other eco-nuts to drive around in limos and SUVs, live in large houses, guzzle tons of energy...but then turn around and tell us to turn off our air conditioners and keep our thermostats off in winter. All with the added bonus of losing our cars and additional carbon taxes - not limited to taxes on babies and large families.
And we're supposed to sit back and give Al Gore the key to our homes, our cars, our lives and our personal choices all because of "global warming" (sorry - global climate change).
Weathermen and scientists can't predict tomorrow's weather with accuracy - and we're supposed to trust they know what will happen 20, 30, 40 years from now?
What about the world *before* we tracked weather patterns? What about the pre-industrial revolution period where the world was so warm there were vineyards in England? How do you explain the climate change on a planet like Mars - not affected by human activity?
Liberals love dissent - except when we dissent against their pet causes. Then dissent is not only not allowed, but punished. Got it.
Hey, f-bum: i didnt forget. Do you want to pick an end date?
-------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------- ---------
so" tell me, f-bum, you going to come on here again when the uber-alarmist prediction DOESNT come true and say "oops?"
will anyone or will it be another in a long line of apocalyptic predictions that have been made only to fade away when it doesnt come true?
So here's the deal:
If/when the prediction doesnt come true, I challange you to come back on here and say how insane that prediction was in november.
If the opposite happens, I will come on here and say how insane I was for not believing it.
DEAL?
still Unreal... | Homepage | 07.14.08 - 9:09 pm | #
--------------------------------------------------
"DEAL?"
Whatev. Sure.
folkbum | Homepage | 07.14.08 - 10:14 pm | #
-------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------- --------
3rd-grade and Folktunes are misfits. I'd call them sissies but that would be mean to sissies everywhere. These 2 freaks of nature provide me endless laughter.
Folktunes the globe isn't warming. Ergo, there is no global warming. You are embarrassing yourself as usual Folktunes. You are such a weak tit.
I am pretty sure that if I bumped into you at the grocery store you wouldn't call me a sissy. If you wouldn't call me names in real life you probably shouldn't call me names when typing on a keyboard.
Amy, liberals like Folktunes and 3rd-grade are all mouth, and no balls. They couldn't exist without your taxes. Liberals never practice what they preach. They are illlogical misfits and unhappy goofs. The thing you need to know about liberals like Folktunes and 3rd-grade is that they are dishonest and have no moral values at all.
If I raised a son like Folktunes or 3rd-grade, I'd blow my brains out. They are disgusting.
Gus tone it down, you are acting no better than they do.
3rd-grade, don't be absurd. If you want to meet and find out, I'm game. You're a ball-less wonder.
Holy cow, 14 comments and not one attempt to blame it on Bush. I am sooooo impressed.
By the way you lefties, every single report that attempts to pin climate change on human activity uses the GSS and NASA temperature data for its base science. Even the IPCC report is useless without that data.
The problem lies in the fact that NASA "adjusts" the data every year and refuses to release the exact formula used to calculate the adjustment.
Now why would they do that?
If I raised a son like Folktunes or 3rd-grade, I'd blow my brains out. They are disgusting.
I think that's definitely uncalled for.
My position on this is that if liberals are going to say we have no right to regulate something like sex/abortion/birth control but then turn around and say that they can regulate how we heat our homes or drive our cars - while supporting people (like Gore) who live in a house ten times bigger than one I'll ever own, arrive at events via limo or SUV, and jet around the globe to pontificate on the need to be green, yeah - I'm going to be annoyed.
On top of it, and despite what liberals say, global warming (sorry - global "climate change") is not settled science. There's enough dissent and reasonable skepticism that I'm not about to hunker down in a cave to save the world from disaster that probably isn't going to come. I like being able to read at night, and I like the fact I don't freeze to death in the middle of January, thankyouverymuch.
Liberals love dissent - except when we dissent against their pet causes. Then dissent is not only not allowed, but punished. Got it.
We have greenshirts calling for Nuremberg-style trials for global warming skeptics.
Liberals love dissent - except when we dissent against their pet causes. Then dissent is not only not allowed, but punished. Got it.
We have greenshirts calling for Nuremberg-style trials for global warming skeptics.
Great point Peter, disagree with them and they want to put you on trial.
Ahh the party of tolerance and diversity...
Now I want you all to tell me why Al Gore's new boat 2 story house boat BS1 is ok because he uses a green fuel. (hint he is still an energy and resource hog, bio or otherwise)
If liberals are concerned about global warming, why are they still driving, and using electricity.
The answer is simple. 3rd-grade and Folktunes need to have something to bitch about. Liberals need and crave control and more government. They never practice what they preach
It is an excuse to push an extremist agenda Gus, nothing more nothing less. They are using scare tactics and pushing it on the young to raise on new breed of liberals. Hopefully they'll be smart enough to figure it out if enough of us are brave enough to speak the truth about liberal alarmism.
ooooo.......ooooo!!
why are they whining about lack o limos in denver when they have public transportation?
"Until Jay, 3rd way, JIJAWM and the rest of the global warming alarmists..."
Amy,
This just doesn't make sense. I'm not a global warming alarmist in any sense of the word. I've never said anything anywhere that would give anyone any reason to think I was. I'm sort of of the Bjorn Lomborg school of thought on climate change.
Also, I laughed when you put up a post in which you argued that a cracker could ACTUALLY turn into a magic dead guy. I thought you were joking and I thought it was hillarious. It's ridiculous to ban someone for laughing at what most people would consider an obvious, intentional joke.
Fred,
I believe I was defending you on Mathias's blog. Mathias is no Folkbum. He's wrong a lot, like Folkbum, but he's also bonkers and mean, like... oh nevermind.
,,,,and why, oh why, are they whining about the lack of limos in denver when there are buses and - their favorite - choo choo trains to ride.
Calling me what you did is defending me JIJARWM?
You did say what S.U. wrote was not racist, but go back and look at what else you said.
I had nothing to do with anything on that post and you sought me out for a nasty insult anyway.
And now you play stupid.
Let me refresh your memory, "Fred and Still Unreal are, for the most part, idiotic douchebags."
If that is your idea of defending me, don't bother.
Also, I laughed when you put up a post in which you argued that a cracker could ACTUALLY turn into a magic dead guy. I thought you were joking and I thought it was hillarious. It's ridiculous to ban someone for laughing at what most people would consider an obvious, intentional joke.
It's not a joke to me. My blog is like my home - I would not let you come in and knock my icons or crucifixes off the wall - mocking my faith and the way I choose to live my life.
You demand everyone respect the fact you're an atheist while you act like a 12-year-old angst ridden teenager who mocks what he never will understand.
I'm not going to tolerate it. I'm Catholic and my faith is right. I don't give a rat's behind if you think it's hilarious or otherwise - I don't and I'm not going to tolerate you acting like an ass on my blog.
You don't understand it and don't like it...fine. But I'm not obligated to give you an engraved invitation to mock me.
You clearly have some obsession with my blog and my faith if you have to bring it up here.
"You demand everyone respect the fact you're an atheist while you act like a 12-year-old angst ridden teenager who mocks what he never will understand."
--that pretty much sums up 99.99% of the inclusive left.
Outstanding, Amy.
Oh, and Amy? His only obsession is a thirst for an audience to see is disagreements.
The fact that he has no original thoughts is pretty obvious -- visit his blog.
visit his blog
No, thanks. I've got better things to do with my time.
2,000 years of anti-Christian folks using the same arguments JIJAWM uses has not destroyed the Church. He won't either.
FYI - HaloScan's being twitchy. Doesn't publish posts, then publishes two when you go back and re-type them.
"You demand everyone respect the fact you're an atheist..."
No I don't.
"Let me refresh your memory..."
I suppose that was a little harsh. I did say, "for the most part" though. And that statement was followed by a "but." The point is that I'm an objective dude. If you, or even Still Unreal, make a point I agree with, I'll back it up even though you guys are... ya' know... you guys.
I find it amusing that our faith in Jesus Christ bothers people.
I've got news for you JIJAWM, Jesus exists, global warming doesn't.
That was priceless gus.
Gus,
It doesn't really bother me in it's basic form. For the most part it's just funny. I mean, grown, otherwise marginally intelligent people with jobs and everything actually believe that a cosmic Jewish zombie will remove the evil spirits from your soul that were put there when a woman created from a rib took an apple from a talking snake if you psychically communicate with him and ceremoniously eat his flesh and drink his blood.
But that's all real, huh?
I'm not sure whether or not "global warming" is "real." It's a theory that a lot of, but not all, scientists seem to accept at some level. However, the extent to which humans are causingit, the degree of effect it may have, and whether it's cost effective to undertake a particular course of action to attempt to counteract it are matters that are basically unknown to all of us.
No I don't.
Yes you do - your mockery of religion insists that everyone either conform and respect your atheistic views or you will hold them in contempt. You don't respect the views of anyone who disagrees with you - your attitude, time and again, more that proves this assertion.
As I said above - I don't visit your blog because I don't give crap what you write there. But when you come onto my territory or blaspheme my faith in the public square, you'd better be damn sure I'm going to defend it and - where I can - ask you not to return.
A little harsh?
I point it out and you do not even have a teeny little bit of class to apologize for your crass remark.
And I'm the bad guy?
Priceless.
Yes - someone who refuses to even use the words "God" and "Jesus" lecturing us on who's "marginally intelligent."
Good gracious.
And, aside from the fact people of faith - motivated by their very real belief in a very real God and very real Jesus - had a HUGE and instrumental role in earliest days of scientific development, education, hospitals and health care, and the founding of Western Civilization means nothing.
We're all a bunch of drooling idiots to you because we believe in God.
Condescend much?
Fred,
Okay, that's fair. It was immature and mean of me to refer to you as an idiotic douchebag. Sorry.
Amy,
I don't insist on anything. Even if I mock one of your ideas, it does not mean that I am somehow creating a rule that you are not allowed to have a certain idea. You can have whatever stupid ideas you want. But I'm going to call you on them. If someone tells me that they know that 2 + 2 = 5 or that the Earth is flat, I will insist that they present me with evidence and logical thought to support such ideas. If they present bad evidence, or no evidence, I will tell them that they do not know those things, and if I have counter evidence, I will present it. If their idea is patently absurd, I will say so.
"Yes - someone who refuses to even use the words "God" and "Jesus"..."
I don't refuse to use any word. I just have a varied vocabulary and a poetic knack for the English language.
"And, aside from the fact people of faith - motivated by their very real belief in a very real God and very real Jesus - had a HUGE and instrumental role in earliest days of scientific development, education, hospitals and health care, and the founding of Western Civilization means nothing. "
Ehhhhh, not really. As an organization, the Catholic church has mostly stood in the way of such things. You guys caused the dark ages for Chrisake. Although some scientific advancements came about at the hands of Christians during times when most people were Christians, I think history shows that "faith" has a net negative effect on science and technology.
"We're all a bunch of drooling idiots to you because we believe in God."
I wouldn't say you're drooling. What was this post about again?
There goes JIJARWM again on an ati-religious diatribe, never realizing that SCIENTIFIC FACT and BELIEF are as different from each other as mathematics and psychology. One can be proven, and the other cannot. It just doesn't sink into an atheistic brain that not everything is science, and to use the2 + 2 = 5 example is absurd. That's mathematics and can be proven one way or another. There are things, seen and unseen, in this life that cannot be proven and are simply a matter of BELIEF.
And as far as I'm concerned, any belief that helps someone get through life is valid. We are, after all, human beings----NOT ROBOTS!
On the other hand, maye JIJARWM is a robot.
"There goes JIJARWM again on an ati-religious diatribe, never realizing that SCIENTIFIC FACT and BELIEF are as different from each other..."
This is so obviously false I can't believe it. I clearly realize that scientific fact and belief are different. They're basically opposites. One is when you examine evidence and come to a conclusion, the other is when you totally ignore facts and come to a conclusion anyway.
"There are things, seen and unseen, in this life that cannot be proven and are simply a matter of BELIEF. "
There are things in this life that cannot be proven. That doesn't mean we have to attempt to fill in gaps with fairy tales. There is absolutely no reason we need belief.
"And as far as I'm concerned, any belief that helps someone get through life is valid."
As far as I'm concerned, you don't know what valid means.
I think history shows that "faith" has a net negative effect on science and technology.
Prove it.
Here: A non-exhaustive list of Christian thinkers, scientists, mathematicians, etc. throughout the ages:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Lis...kers_in_science
But, boy, we really hate science.
Fool.
Jesuits in science:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Lis...suit_scientists
Jewish scientists:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Lis...nd_philosophers
Payback thrid way, I don't like being called a hater by a hater, go see what he wrote about me on Mathias' site on something I had nothing to do with.
You had nothing to do with a sockpuppet, but that didn't keep you from writing this attack piece.
Too late to go whining now. You're no innocent victim.
And you have been running around saying nasty things about me forever. Well before I ever posted that.
Go climb back into your cave. I respond and you think you have some moral high-ground?
You do not have an ounce of cred to complain about any hit piece on you, that's just about all you do.
Seriously, just go away you jerk.
Commenting by HaloScan
