Ernest,

Right on the money. Excellent. And just the right length, too

"The ideal time to again run footage of the Exxon Valdez and Santa Barbara oil spills would have been the moment the Obama administration announced lifting the moratorium on off-shore drilling --- an action which has now been "shelved" in light of the latest disaster."

It's up to us to see that it stays shelved. Corporate media won't help here.

Of course the CMSM doesn't tend to run environmental pieces as much as they should, look at whose paying ad dollars to them, another thing like campaign contributions that needs to be reformed. As far as Palin goes, on her bus-book tour she was using an oil co. jet licensed out of Uzbekistan. Every time we fill our vehicles or pay taxes we give money to the real terrorists...big oil.

Certainly there is technology to replace polluting destructive oil that is being suppressed, but as to the cause of global temperature fluctuations the science is not so clear and there's this -

http://canadafreepress.c.../index.php/article/22624

As you say, the Santa Barbara oil spill happened 40 yrs ago. Yet that area is still a cesspool. Probably not because of the oil spill, but because of constant low level leakage. My son went to school in SB and wouldn't swim in the ocean because of the pollution. I was on a chartered fishing boat in SB and where we fished there was a petroleum slick on the water that we could see and smell.

Ernest

I am in that dropping percentage of believers.

It took years of investigating on my own for me to change my mind. The process was slow, painful, and difficult.

Al Gore is a money-making politician, who spewed numerous scientific errors in his famous film. Some cuts of the movie are very deceptive indeed.

The hacked emails of Phil Jones and many others proved that there is more than science going on, and also that we are being lied to (by many on both sides).

The mildly warm decade has also not been in agreeance with claim made by the Man Made Global Warming movement.

All of this doesnt even matter to me really.

I stil have not been shown the proof that CO2 does indeed precipitate the temperature, and not the other way around.

Of course this is the core of the argument.

I hope that my disbelief in the man made warming theory doesnt lead you to think I dont care for the environment and realize that we have true issues to address. (GMO foods being about #1 to me, followed by poor education, and no accountability in business and politics.)

It is easy to see as well how the "Green" movement is mainly just well intentioned people giving their "green" money to the same corporations with new "green" labels. The GREEN term is an obvious sham now, sorry Brad.

I respect that you feel otherwise, like I said, I did to at one point. Then I opened my mind to absorb information and critically analize it.

First you must stop blaming everything on Limbaugh and Palin, they are only puppets like Gore and Obama.

No, Marzi, that's utter bullshit. Apologies for being so blunt, but the article you link is written by a guy whose background is in welding engineering, who relies on the completely discredited 'Oregon Petition' --- most of those "30,000 scientists" aren't actually scientists at all. Look here:

Debunking the Oregon Petition

SourceWatch: Oregon Petition

The Oregon Petition People Have Misrepresented Their Own Petition

What you don't mention is that the article you link to refers to a new Nature article that demonstrates, contrary to the deniers' claims, that Nature does not censor opposing data or viewpoints, and includes legitimate peer-reviewed research even when it presents data contrary to the consensus. And there is a consensus in the scientific community.

So good news! You can stop peddling embarrassingly outdated and utterly discredited, debunked denier talking points by checking out the actual scientific evidence gathered by actual scientists. For an excellent overview of the actual science, and what we know and don't know, go to SkepticalScience.com.

Brian @#5: "I stil have not been shown the proof that CO2 does indeed precipitate the temperature, and not the other way around."

Then I submit that you haven't looked at legitimate science sites that cover the actual scientific evidence. There is an undeniable consensus in the scientific community; if you are not yourself a climate scientist, perhaps you might consider finding out what the actual scientists know that you don't?

Here's the scientific explanation of the data: CO2 lags temperature - what does it mean?

There are many more lines of evidence in multiple Earth systems disciplines that go beyond CO2's interaction with solar radiation. In your research, did you find the evidence that overturned the basic chemical interaction of seawater and CO2? Ocean acidification is accelerating, and is unrelated to CO2's effect on global temperature.

Also, has it ever occurred to you that you might be an unwitting tool of the climate change denial industry?

Also just wanted to point out, Brian, that we are making fun of Palin and Rush for their moronic statements --- not blaming them.

Also surprised that you didn't know the climate scientists targeted in 'Climategate' have been cleared of wrongdoing and scientific misconduct again and again, and that charges of falsification and manipulation of data are utterly baseless.

Perhaps you should consider casting a wider net when seeking information on this very important issue.

Des,
Bush is free, and Pinochet wasnt arrested until he was 90 years old, so the point you try to make about the scientists being cleared is worthless to the likes of me.

Furthermore,
The consenus is far from undeniable.
In a parallel, long term lyme disease is looked at as a neurological problem, not an actual physically dehabilitating disease. How is this so?
The Medical Journals, and Research Groups that issue the "consensus" or data, are corrupt!

For more on long term lyme disease watch "Under our Skin."

There is NO direct Proof that CO2 precipitates temperature in climate change. I have seen quite the opposite, but I am not the specialist, I am just being objective.

Thanks for your concern about being a tool, but you spend a week with me and you'll know what environmentally sound really means. It has nothing to do with what is "marketed" to you as green though.

Ernest, Des:

A glass (ther earth)
filled with ice (glaciers)
is dilled with water (water)
then let the ice melt. (heat)

Does it flow over the cup?
The idea that our "seas will rise" does not make sense.

The amount of water on the earth never changes, only the medium it has taken.

However deforestation and the erosion of our soil is a REAL problem that we should have been focused on.

Brian @10 wrote:

Deforestation and the erosion of our soil is a REAL problem...

While there is little you have written so far that squares with basic science, you won't get an argument from me on that one, Brian. But did you ever stop to think about the adverse impact deforestation has on atmospheric levels of CO2?

Brian, with all due respect, your example on sea level rise doesn't make any sense. We already know that sea levels have fluctuated greatly over Earth's geologic history, so of course sea level can rise again.

The scientific consensus exists, wholly independent of whether you believe it or not. Every single major scientific organization in the world (with the notable exception of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists) has signed on to the scientific consensus.

You are of course within your rights to believe you are more qualified to evaluate the data than the people who've actually done the hard work of science, who've dedicated their entire careers to studying these disciplines, obtaining the advanced degrees, painstakingly gathering the field data, analyzing and interpreting the results, publishing their conclusions in the peer-review process.

Good for you for taking the time to do some of the research yourself --- but hopefully you'll understand, absent relevant supporting data and studies (with links) from multiple Earth systems disciplines, if your conclusions don't carry the same weight.

Des
Actually - are you sure sea levels have changed, or was it the GEOGRAPHY? (thats a basic science, right Ernest)

Just the same, the IPCC report is filled with bunk date compiled with unverified information.
http://timesofindia.indi.../articleshow/5502902.cms

Al Gore is a fraud as well, determined by a judge:
http://www.timesonline.c...ience/article2632660.ece

How many glaciers in the world are there? Over 100,000

How many are studied for climate science?
a handfull

Growing Glacier here in California:
http://www.usatoday.com/...a-growing-glaciers_N.htm

Basic Science Ernest? If it were so basic then your article would be unneccesary. The declining numbers of "believers" is for good reason.

Your science obviously does NOT speak for itself.

Des, this link you provided:

List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming

Also had this link on it too.

List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming

which then goes into the "questionable" material from the IPCC and other claims. Go on, read your links.

I would never send you a WIKI link for evidence of anything, let alone something as important as climate change.

Have you ever investigated all claims on both sides of any story?

And then investigated the origins, the funders, the capital, and the idea?

IPCC = U.N. = Rockefeller = demented, corrupt global governence. PERIOD.

This is simple math.

I respectfully disagree with you.

woopsie,

The link you provided was this:
Every single major scientific organization in the world

Simple,

Ice age, over abundance of water on land in the form of ice equals low sea levels.

Conversely...

Flor-
And then that would get into the fact that the amount of water on Earth does not change, only the form in which it has taken?

That wasn't a "woopise", Brian, that was showing you the handful of scientific organizations in the entire world that have signed non-committal statements among the long list of all the other organizations who agree. Wikipedia is a fine reference for a massive list of organizations; but of course contact each of these hundreds of organizations to personally verify their statements for yourself.

>Actually - are you sure sea levels have changed, or was it the GEOGRAPHY?

It's unclear what you mean here --- are you trying to say sea level rise was a function of plate tectonics or something? No one has claimed that sea level rise is predicated on the existence of "more" water on Earth. Ice ages and interglacials are the primary (but by no means only) influence on sea levels, and were also a primary influence on patterns of human migration. [See also: Last Interglacial: Timing and Environment (USGS), and High rates of sea-level rise during the last interglacial period (Nature, 2007).

You don't include any actual science in your links.

The IPCC report does have some errors in prediction (for example, the prediction of when Himalayan glaciers would melt) but not in evidence (the fact that they are melting). So far, only one genuine mistake has turned up — and it was discovered not by a skeptic, but by one of the IPCC scientists. It's hilarious that deniers keep trying, but a few sentences that have been noted and corrected (unlike denier "evidence") out of the more than 3,000 pages of the IPCC report does not make the rest of the data "bunk".

Regarding the UK court ruling on An Inconvenient Truth, it's also funny how you have read so much into so little. Here's a great overview of that canard, showing that the judge in the actual decision (for those who bother to read such things) found the film "broadly accurate" and your 'fraud' was actualy nine points on which the film differed with .... the IPCC. The judge rejected the plaintiff's case, ruling the film could still be shown in schools, but due to the political atmosphere, he ruled differing views should be presented for balance.

No one said all glaciers are receding around the world. Nice straw man ya got there. Here's what the science says:

While there are isolated cases of growing glaciers, the overwhelming trend in glaciers worldwide is retreat. In fact, the global melt rate has been accelerating since the mid-1970s.

At least, that's according to the scientists at the World Glacier Monitoring Inventory and the World Glacier Inventory. The same folks whose data also shows the glaciers that are "growing". So are you only disagreeing with the portions of data that don't fit your narrative? Even your USA Today article explicitly emphasizes that the majority of Cascades glaciers are in retreat. Gosh, it's almost as if you only read the parts of the article that agreed with your predetermined conclusions.

Yes, I've investigated both sides of the "argument", but base my conclusions on the scientific data. I've also investigated the "questionable material from the IPCC", and the supporting scientific data there, as well.

Your "simple math" and allegations of global conspiracy do not constitute scientific data. Like most climate change "skeptics", you seem to be conflating the scientific implications of the data with what you perceive to be the policy implications of the data --- but that also does not constitute actual contradictory scientific data, of which you appear to have none.

I would put the same question to you --- have you investigated "the origins, the funders, the capital, and the idea" behind the climate change denial industry?

And just a point of logic --- when you challenge the scientific data, you're not disagreeing with Ernie or me, you're disagreeing with the scientists who study these disciplines.

If you believe you are in possession of superior data from any of these Earth systems disciplines, or your analysis shows that the field data gathered by others is incorrect, or their conclusions are incorrect, by all means take your case to the world's scientific organizations.

Somewhat Brian, it also has to do with the weight of the ice on the land mass causing it to sink into the mantle, which would make the earths crust thinner in the ice covered area therefore leading to another warming period due to increased volcanic activity during that period.
During warmer periods water is also stored in the abundant plant life and the atmosphere which could inhibit sea level rise.

http://www.newton.dep.an...kasci/gen99/gen99891.htm

For anyone who has bothered to read this far, you'll find at this link an excellent, detailed overview of the empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming. It begins:

It still surprises me when I hear skeptics claim there is no evidence that we're causing global warming. The evidence is there in the peer reviewed literature. What they're really saying is they haven't bothered to look. So to make things easier for everyone, here is the evidence that humans are causing global warming. It's not based on theory, climate models, faith or political ideology but on direct, empirical observations.

It is a delicate balance of many things, that's why I believe man made climate change is real because one little (or big) thing can start the dominoes tumbling.

Brian @ 13:

Looks like Desi is dealing with your duped-ness for the most part, but couldn't help but ask: do you even bother to read the actual stories at the links you send? Or just cut and paste them from your favorite denier site??

Eg. The link you said shows that "Al Gore is a fraud as well, determined by a judge" shows no such thing. Not even close.

More absurdly, the next link you offered, reporting it as "Grown Glacier in California", hardly makes your case. In fact, it destroys it. Just a few examples from that articleemphasis added]>:

There is much more in that article. But the point is, are you a chump, or just playing one on this topic??

You then go on to write to Ernie:

Basic Science Ernest? If it were so basic then your article would be unneccesary. The declining numbers of "believers" is for good reason.

Yes, because the Fossil Fuel industry has put an unprecedented amount of money into deceptively posting propaganda and counting on "skeptics" like you to buy into it. They have succeeded, as they are willing/able to spend more to fool folks like you (eg. ExxonMobil made $45B in profit last year) then actual scientists running on minimal and shrinking government grants can put out to counter. You might be surprised, but climate science is not quite as big of a profit center as Big Oil, Big Coal, etc.

I appreciate that it's cool to be a contrarian and all, and to write Alex Jonesian stuff like:

eg: "IPCC = U.N. = Rockefeller = demented, corrupt global governence. PERIOD.

This is simple math."

...as you wrote @ 14, without any actual evidence to back up any of that "simple math". But your beliefs and contrarian coolness doesn't actually = science and/or fact. Hoping that simple math is simple enough for ya, Brian.

That said, if you don't already, you should make money from what you're doing here. Cuz you're sure doing a fine job of helping the bad guys continue to screw you over.

Brian: Brad and Desi have so thoroughly demolished your thoughtless and disingenuous effort to deny basic science that it would be redundant for me to pile on.

I do wish to add one point, however, with respect to your exercise in irrationality --- the suggestion that if the science were so basic, there would be no need for this piece.

While Brad aptly questioned whether you actually read the articles you linked to, many of which demolish the points you have made with the fervor of a religious fanatic, your statement that there would be no need for this article if the science were solid reflects that you missed the entire thrust of my article.

The problem has never been the science. The problem is the failure of the corporate MSM to accurately report on the science --- a failure, which, coupled with the junk science proffered by those on the fossil fuel industry payroll, has opened the door to anti-environmental propaganda and given rise to a growing numbers of the misinformed, who are taken in by the anti-environmental propaganda.

With all due respect, the fact that you so thoroughly missed the thrust of my article reflects either a serious gap in your reasoning skills or, worse, the possibility that you really don't believe a word of what you have written at this site, but hoped that you could sow the seeds of doubt about the "basic science" in the minds of the uninformed.

I'm not sure which, though given your thoroughly unscientific ice in a glass of water analogy pertaining to ocean levels, I suspect it is the former.

What your simplistic and inapt analogy neglects, among other things, is that there is a fundamental difference between, for example, the northern polar cap which rests atop the Arctic ocean and the southern ice sheath which is atop a land mass.

When ice from either a land-based glacier or atop the Antarctic continent melts, the water flows into the ocean. Likewise, icebergs that break off the Antarctic sheath fall into the ocean with a corresponding displacement/rise in the level of the ocean.

If you really must turn to a glass of water analogy, here's a little experiment you can perform at home. Fill a glass with water all the way to the top. Carefully place it on a counter so as to avoid spillage. Grab three ice cubes from the freezer and insert them into the glass of water. I'll bet dollars to donuts that the water inside the glass will spill over the sides when you add the ice cubes.

This is rather basic, which is why I wrote that your musings are contrary to "basic science."

The current issue of Harvard Magazine has an article about how the gravitational pull of glaciers affects sea levels nearby. Contrary to one's immediate intuition, sea levels do not rise uniformly around the world as glacial melt is added to them because coastal glaciers are massive enough to exert an actual gravitational effect on the water in the ocean. When the glaciers melt, the gravitational effect lessens, so sea level might fall locally because the increase in the volume of water is more than offset by the lower gravitational pull of the smaller glacier. The corollary of this is that sea level will rise more than the average somewhere else because the water does have to go somewhere; it doesn't disappear. The article isn't very long, so go read it and boggle your mind a bit.

Brad-
Calling me a chump. Thats Low. I have supported you. Chill your big ego that I know you have.

Moving on, Brad:
I could just as well say that you all believe what you do because of a multi-trillion dollar a year defense budget that is said to go missing.
In reality this is part of psy ops, or black ops creating public opinions.

The letter you reposted that you say disproves my point does not. My point was that some glaciers are growing as well. And it made that point.

What you DID NOT highlight was another point I had made:

Glaciologists say most glaciers in Alaska and Canada are retreating, but there are too many to study them all.

Furthermore, the entire article is talking about Climate Change which I don't argue. I argue man made global warming.

For the record:
I have not owned a car for 4 years until recently. I have not eaten meat for 7 years, dairy for 5. I grow organic vegetables and tend 5 chickens. My sox have holes in tops, because the tops used to be the bottoms, and yes, they are organic cotton socks. I believe everyone should be good stewards of the earth and their local community. Pick up a piece of trash.

But don't buy Al Gore, or a hybrid. Don't buy if you want to really be Green. And that is the the fraud of the Green movement, you have to buy it just the same. Forget true education, just buy compact florescents from CHINA!

I don't need to try to convince you guys, and vice versa, so no hostility needed. I just disagree.

Ernest -
Thanks for your article, I agree about Mainstream Media being a problem as well. But I disagree with you on other topics.

You say @ 23:

If you really must turn to a glass of water analogy, here's a little experiment you can perform at home. Fill a glass with water all the way to the top. Carefully place it on a counter so as to avoid spillage. Grab three ice cubes from the freezer and insert them into the glass of water. I'll bet dollars to donuts that the water inside the glass will spill over the sides when you add the ice cubes.

Hoever this logic is not sound.

You are essentially saying if we take 30% of Outer Spaces water , and bring it to earth, the earth would have more water.

Of course the Earth would have more water then!

That is not what is happening here on Earth though. The glaciers are here, the water is here, and the land is here. Just moving around, we sont have any continents, glaciers, or oceans coming from space anytime soon.

Now you understand why I asked for the Ice to be put into the glass before the water. There is always the same amount of water:

Thanks to the water cycle our planet's water supply is constantly moving from one place to another and from one form to another

Floridiot:
Thanks for being human

Des@ 18
Des,
The canard you sent me really is just a perspective from one person just the same. None the less I looked through most of it.

As always it swings both ways. This is in that article you sent:

So contrary to all the reporters' claims Burton did not find that there were 9 scientific errors in AIT, but that there were nine points that might be errors or where differing views should be presented for balance.

And all he did there was some nice legal representation. "He may have committed a crime, or may not have."

I used to believe like you too. So Im not hating on you. I hope you dont hate on me.

This is another strategic goal of the ones in power, our kings; devide and conquer.

2 of my closest friends are environmental engineers.

one of them reads news, the other is always studying or working.

The one who reads the news is always saying man made globalwarming is real.

The one that does not read the news has never believed in man made global warming because he never has seen direct proof through his studies.

The one who doies not believe in Man Made Global Warming went to school at Cal Poly for environmental engineering. At the time (I believed in M.M. Global Warming) I held his climate change beliefs against him.

Go figure.

Ernest,

Like I said I am in that group of dropping percentage that felt the earth was getting warmer from human C02 levels.

Reading your article again I really do like most of it, I am with you on your points.

I should have been more clear. Sorry.

We do disagree about C02 though.

But by all means, corporate media is dead.

Out of all of this, does anyone here believe that this capitalist dream of "carbon credits" and the other bs (more tax) that they're proposing will do any good other than lining the pockets of the cc traders?

Of course the consumer will ultimately be the ones left with the empty pockets, especially the lower class wage earner.

We just have to get off of oil and centralized for profit utilities, period.

I

On spaced-out glasses of water, geography, and other matters:

Arctic Ice floats on the Arctic Ocean, and therefore its effect on ocean level is like the ice already floating in the glass of water --- no change --- but it's different at the South Pole.

Antarctica is a continent. That means the melting ice adds water to the oceans and will cause a sea level rise.

As far as geography goes, how does that explain an entire island being swallowed up?

Lora: Thanks for adding clarity to the point I thought I had conveyed @23 which, as reflected by comment #26, had been 'too deep' for Brian to understand.

When ice that rests atop land masses, e.g. Greenland, Antarctica, melts, gravity forces the liquid form of H20 to flow into the ocean. When you add water to the ocean resulting in a corresponding increase in the volume of Oceanic water and a rise in sea level.

Thus, on Feb. 10, 2010 the U.S. Geological Survey reported in "Ice Shelves Disappearing on Antarctic Peninsula
Glacier Retreat and Sea Level Rise are Possible Consequences,"

"Ice shelves are retreating in the southern section of the Antarctic Peninsula due to climate change. This could result in glacier retreat and sea-level rise if warming continues, threatening coastal communities and low-lying islands worldwide."

“Greenland's glaciers disappearing from the bottom up”

Ernie wrote @ 34:

Thus, on Feb. 10, 2010 the U.S. Geological Survey reported in "Ice Shelves Disappearing on Antarctic Peninsula Glacier Retreat and Sea Level Rise are Possible Consequences,"

Oh, Ernie, you're so naive! Don't you know that the U.S. Geological Survey is in on the scam?! They're just another arm of the U.N. and their insidious plans to enslave us all under King Gore and his tyrannical Cap and Trade scheme for world domination!

The evidence for that? Well, Brian says so! So whose word are you gonna take for it? Thousands and thousands of independent scientists and both governmental and non-profit organizations from across the planet in separate earth disciplines on every continent? Or Brian's (and Rush's and the fossil fuel industry's?)

Sorry, Brian. Love ya man. I will still presume you mean well, but have just been utterly scammed by the billions of dollars being spent to do exactly that.

Lora @ 33:

Thanks for the article on that disappeared island. Hadn't heard about that one! I'll look forward to Brian's explanation for it. I'm sure it's just another one of those crazy hoaxes by King Gore, Powerful Ruler of the Universe!

Oh boy,
I really do hope you know that I DON'T know for sure. The thing is, I can admit it.

I am glad my response is welcomed and awaited.

As for as the sinking "island":
New Moore/South Talpatti Island Disputed island
Other names: Purbasha

A map depicting the previous location of South Talpatti Island and the "main flow" of Hariabhanga river as per a Bangladeshi claim. The Bangladeshi claim had been contested by India.
Geography
Location Bay of Bengal
Coordinates 21°37′00″N 89°08′30″E / 21.6166667°N 89.14167°E / 21.6166667; 89.14167Coordinates: 21°37′00″N 89°08′30″E / 21.6166667°N 89.14167°E / 21.6166667; 89.14167
Administered by

Claimed by
Bangladesh
India
Demographics
Population None

New Moore or Purbasha (as it is known in India) or South Talpatti (as it is known in Bangladesh) was a small uninhabited offshore sandbar landform in the Bay of Bengal, off the coast of the Ganges-Brahmaputra Delta region.[1] It emerged in the Bay of Bengal in the aftermath of the Bhola cyclone in 1970,

Jadavpor University has 3 teachers and no where mentions its own satelites. So - I wonder where these "pictures," that aren't available anywhere, of this sand dune are available?

Appearently no one is researching anything here. Maybe that is why all Google searches of New Moore Island comes up with it "sinking" instead of what it actually was, hence 2 broken rules of Wiki links sent. (Though for defintions, not science.)

Where is the USGS photos of this disappearing island? No where, because it was never an island, and it never mattered.

Laura @ 33

Yes water melts, and then, thanks to the water cycle it forms into snw again.Some becomes ice, some becomes rain.

So as I said, put the ice in the cup, fill it with water and watch it never spill over.

My posts would be cleaner for you all but it is 3:00 in the morning and I have bneen to 3 fundraiser/events today.

Please excuse the poor typing.

But please consider what I have said.

Thanks

More on Moore Island:
http://wikimapia.org/953...or-South-Talpatti-Island

and more:
The island was claimed by both Bangladesh and India, although neither country established any permanent settlement there because of the island's geological instability based on silt deposits in a delta which floods every year.

Brian @37 wrote "put the ice in the cup, fill it with water and watch it never spill over."

______

I'm sorry, Brian. Brad may want to give you the benefit of the doubt but I can't.

Every one of your latest set of comments reveal someone who is being deliberately obtuse.

The question is not and never was whether you can add or subtract from the total amount of H20 on the planet.

There are three scientific questions that were addressed by and answered by the referenced U.S. Geological Survey report.

1. Are global temperatures rising? Yes.

2. Is the rise in global temperatures causing Antarctic ice to melt? Yes.

3. Will continued global warming cause sea levels to rise and "threaten coastal communities and low-lying islands worldwide?" Probably.

A five year old can see the glaring hole in your put the ice in a glass and then fill the glass with water scenario.

If you are going to use a glass as representative of the ocean floor, you must start with the understanding that the ocean floor (glass) is already full.

The ice that concerns scientists is not the ice that is already in the body of water we call the ocean (e.g., Arctic ice). It is the ice that is not presently in contact with that body of water we call the ocean--land-based glaciers and the ice sheaths in Greenland and Antarctica.

If you really must use your inept glass of water example, by all means first place ice in the glass; then fill the glass. That ice will float to the top. It represents Arctic ice.

When you have filled the glass full, you still will not have accounted for land-based ice--glaciers, Greenland, Antarctica.

After you've put the first ice cubes in the glass and then filled the glass with water, you reach into the refrigerator for more ice cubes--representing the land based ice.

When you then add ice to the ocean (glass) you increase the volume of H20 in the ocean (glass). A sufficient addition of the volume of H20 into the ocean (glass) will cause a rise in sea level (level of water in the glass) to the point that water floods existing coastal plains (spills over the top edge of the glass).

The concept is so basic that I cannot bring myself to believe you are really too dense to have already understood it. That is why I have concluded that you are being deliberately obtuse.

What troubles me, Brian, is that you are apparently so cynical that you actually believe that the educated people who post at this site are so naïve that they would actually fall for your nonsensical mumblings.

Ernest@ 40,

You are pulling MASS in from OUTER SPACE in your analogy of putting ice from the fridge into a full cup of water

The MASS of the ice can represent LAND and GLACIERS. This is important because we all know that 7 continents are not going to melt; so we are over-testing the sea rise theory.

The rim of the glass simply represents a level.

So, as the ice (representing glaciers and land melting) does indeed melt, it still does not go over.

If anything it precipitates. And that is the natural water cycle I have linked to enough times.

But Ernest-
by all means, feel free to defend your religion by calling me nonsensical, mumbling, and cynical anytime. It shows me a lot about where you are at.I have a backround in psychology.

Ernest @ 40 said:

There are three scientific questions that were addressed by and answered by the referenced U.S. Geological Survey report.

1. Are global temperatures rising? Yes.

2. Is the rise in global temperatures causing Antarctic ice to melt? Yes.

3. Will continued global warming cause sea levels to rise and "threaten coastal communities and low-lying islands worldwide?" Probably

To answer you some more,

1. Temperatures have risen, not every year consecutively, and they have fallen just the same.
This is climate change, which again I don't argue that our climate changes, it is an living entity!

2. It is obvious that when temperatures rise, ice melts. Try the analogy in previous posts to watch ice melt!

3. Probably is not science.

Brian,

Basically, as far as I can tell, the argument goes: because New Moore Island was located only two miles away from the mouth of a river, it must have been made out of sand and mud and not rock. Just sprang into existence forty years back, because we don't have a photo of it before then. Now it was just washed away, not submerged. (By the way, your link didn't work.)

Forgive me if I don't just take that for granted. Not with the grown trees on it and all.

Sounds to me like you fell for a nice load of disinformation.

Just like the ice cubes and the water cycle and all the other anti-scientific stuff the deniers are putting out there hoping to rope you in. The SCIENTISTS don't believe that stuff. Yes, Virginia, there IS a water cycle. But not all that ice shelf melt is going up into the atmosphere.

Oh, and "probably" IS science. That's what data and statistics are all about. Predictions are based on probability.

Lora @ 43
New Moore "island" never had people living on it. It only appeared after a cyclone in 1970. Its highest point at low tide was 6 feet. Because of its GEOGRAPHIC INSTABILITY, it could NOT be settled.

This University does not have satelites that I can tell, so what pictures does he have?

There are no pictures of this island at anytime by anyone as far I can tell.

It is not fair to call me a vicitim of propaganda, as I have argued sensibly and with reason. I have looked at all the data you have and more for many years. I believed, for more years of my life than not, in Man Made Global Warming and all the doomsday events foretold by Gore and others.

It is just as easy for me to say the same thing about ALL of you. But this cant be proven, so get off it. Prove me wrong without insults. My glass analogy stands srong.

Popular Opinion, which you are all endorsing on this subject, is nothing but a result of propaganda. I offer Popular Mechanics "debunking" of the 9/11 movement as proof of that. Many "scientists" believe a 47 story building can collapse into its own footprint, in 5.4 seconds, naturally.

Do you back this science as well?

Or are you selective with your "scientific" beliefs?

Where do you get the idea this SANDBAR had trees out of curiosity?

Lastly, probablitly might be a part of scientific process' but it is not a science to develop policy on. Remember the "photos" of WMD's being produced in Iraq? It was probable that Iraq was developing WMD's, or at least that is what was hammered into peoples head. WEll........

Please note also Lora. (and Ernest)

Predictions are not science. They are a hypothosis, which is part of the scientific process.

Science says "if you throw something up it WILL fall down."

Science does not say "if you throw something in the air, it will probably fall down."

Brad,
Thanks for acknowledging that I may mean well.

Ernest may not believe it, but I do.

Also,
Alex Jonesian is a funny term, but Alex's wok has been featured by Project Censored like you.
So let us respect that.

2004

Peter Phillips has acknowledged his work more so than that as well.
(I live near Peter and have been involved in filming a series of interviews with local activists and scholors reguarding the Bohemian Grove, though Peter did NOT appreciate Jones interpretation of the Grove)

Again, lets respect Alex for what he is. Sometimes too loud, but sometimes just right.

Lora

To add to the point in #45

It is science that is used to rule OUT probabilities, not to include more.

This is how we narrow down different hypothosis' into a fact of science.

Brian @ 46 said:

Alex Jonesian is a funny term, but Alex's wok has been featured by Project Censored like you.
So let us respect that.

No. Let's not.

My work, like anybody's, including Alex's, should be judged on its accuracy and reliability (or not), not for what awards it has or hasn't won.

Accuracy and reliability has nothing to do with "loudness" either, for that matter.

Brian whiffed again @ 47:

Science says "if you throw something up it WILL fall down."

Science does not say "if you throw something in the air, it will probably fall down."

Wow, you really are clueless about what science is or isn't, aren't you, Brian?

Good lord. Best of luck to you. Hoping your getting paid at least for all the work (of the fossil fuel industry propagandists) you're doing here.

I hear evolution is just a theory too. Guessing you challenge that "science" as well. Keep up the bad work!

Brad, what are you talking about?

How do we define science? According to Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, the definition of science is "knowledge attained through study or practice," or "knowledge covering general truths of the operation of general laws, esp. as obtained and tested through scientific method [and] concerned with the physical world."

What does that really mean? Science refers to a system of acquiring knowledge. This system uses observation and experimentation to describe and explain natural phenomena. The term science also refers to the organized body of knowledge people have gained using that system. Less formally, the word science often describes any systematic field of study or the knowledge gained from it.

What is the purpose of science? Perhaps the most general description is that the purpose of science is to produce useful models of reality.

So I KNOW (knowledge = science) that if I throw something up, it will fall.

Are you saying it might not fall?

My simple science experiment of a glass of water and ice so far has stood through all your insults and stands ever stronger.

Who is clueless?
Am I dealing with religious fanatics...yes.

Also Brad:

By discrediting Project Censored's ability to research who they promote and use, you only discredit yourself.

I don't care if you don't like Alex though. He is not a scientist, just like you, Ernest, and probably Lora.

None of you are even willing to try a simple experiment to test the sea rise theory.

None of you are even willing to acknowledge its scientific legitamacy. This is a sign of deep religious belief to me.

But by all means, I am ready for attacks.

As far as getting paid to be here.

You all could pay me some respect, I am not paid to be here. I am trying to have an intilectual conversation and you are all going crazy on me.

Most of your readers are probably not giving a shit about this post since it is already so far down the page, so get off it, I am simply trying to reason and learn.

Unfortunately all I have gotten is 5 year old petty insults, lack of reason, and the disability to concede points made.

Scientific theories are usually given mathematical form, and are always subject to refutation if future experiments contradict them.

Glass = PLanet Earth
Ice = Glaciers on Earth
Water = Water on Earth
7 small rocks = Continents
Rim of Glass = Merker , or Level, or shore of Earth

Put all the above in a glass and watch it never rise!

Science!

First off, Brian, the 'petty insults, lack of reason' are due to frustration at your imperviousness to actual scientific data gathered by actual scientists.

You haven't made any points that are backed up by actual scientific data. And you haven't responded to the multiple lines of evidence across multiple Earth systems science disciplines, such as ocean acidification, species range migrations, or the empirical evidence contained in any of the links that I provided to you, all of which are based on field data.

Your "simple experiment to test the sea level rise theory" is, frankly, ludicrous. A 3rd-grade science "experiment" demonstrating the properties of displacement doesn't constitute actual field data, or replace the (literally) thousands of peer-reviewed academic studies by actual trained scientists over decades of inquiry. It doesn't "test" sea level rise theory any more than moving my furniture around "tests" plate tectonics theory.

How do you reconcile the apparent contradiction that you accept the scientific method, yet dismiss the work of the vast majority of Earth systems scientists as illegitimate?

Also, Brian @ #51, I think you're twisting what Brad actually said. He didn't attack Alex Jones, he simply said, everyone's work "should be judged on its accuracy and reliability (or not), not for what awards it has or hasn't won." Not at all what you said.

Des,

How do you explain so many scientists that believe the official 9/11 story of Building 7?

I don't expect you to be able to sum this up in a comment, so dont expect me to do the same.

I think I have given plenty of scientifically backed facts.

Read: #26, 36, 39, 42, 44, 50 AND 52.

While people here dont understand that the amouint of water NEVER changes.

Mass is MASS, without adding more, you dont get more. So Ernests attempt at debunking my glass theory is utterly absurd.

And your analogy of moving your furniture compared to tectonic plates not a sound scientific experiment.

Give me a mathmatical equation for it and I will break it down, or at least try, without insulting you.

Brian said at various:

By discrediting Project Censored's ability to research who they promote and use, you only discredit yourself.

I did neither of those things. But given the very poor reading skills you seem to display by your responses, it's little surprise you seem so easily deceived by charlatans.

None of you are even willing to try a simple experiment to test the sea rise theory.

Your silly glass of water experiment has already been debunked in this thread several times, but you seem unable to read, or unwilling to do so.

I'll try one more time to explain to you what at least two others have already tried to. Your glass of water experiment does not apply, since the ice in question (glaciers) are sitting on LAND MASS outside of the "glass of water" (ocean). If you fill your glass with water and rocks and put the ice on TOP OF the rocks, outside of the water, and wait for it to melt, you may have an experiment that approximates what the others have been trying to explain to you.

But, by all means, ignore it. Religiously.

None of you are even willing to acknowledge its scientific legitamacy. This is a sign of deep religious belief to me.

Yes. It's a sign of deep religious belief to Rush Limbaugh as well, as he enjoys telling listeners. It sems you are of a piece with him. Of course, he knows how disingenuous he's being. Jury is still out on you on that score.

I am simply trying to reason and learn.

No. You are not. You are decidedly trying to NOT learn. You are trying to teach, using bad/false information (otherwise known as long-ago debunked propaganda, that you have chosen to buy into, rather than research and LEARN that it has long-ago been debunked as nonsense.)

I think what we have here is a failure to communicate.

You said: "While people here dont understand that the amouint of water NEVER changes."

NO ONE has said the AMOUNT of WATER on the Earth has CHANGED. So you can stop arguing with yourself on that one.

Again you have provided no actual supported scientific data --- for example, a link or even two from peer-reviewed academic studies that contain verifiable, falsifiable field data gathered and interpreted by actual scientists who are experts in their fields of study, that refutes any of the peer-reviewed academic studies that others have provided to you.

Lamely asserting 9/11 to change the subject does not constitute supporting evidence. It also does not refute any of the empirical lines of evidence that human activities are altering the climate.

You are welcome to assert whatever you please, but that doesn't pass for supporting evidence, with linked sources based in actual scientific data, which are really useful for all of us to assess your claims that the vast majority of scientists are simply wrong, other than just because you say so.

Regarding my "test" of tectonic plate theory: Exactly.

My assertion of 9/11 is not to change the subject, only to point out that "popular" opinon is often wrong, and so are "scientists."

Though many are right, many are working with data and models that are flawed, ending in further flawed results.

I also brought it up as a point that there is not enough time, or space here with me to explain the lack of TRUTH in science.

Infact, everyone is arguing that the amount of water changes, that is the essence of the sea-rise theory is it not? I might be wrong on my interpretation on everyones arguements here.

ALso , I appreciate you trying to clear the communications.

I followed your link, and I dont dispute that CO2 levels have risen as it says. I dont disspute that temperatures have risen either.

I do question the Co2 and temperature connection, which one comes first, and thir direct or indirect relationship. This is the base of man made global warming arguments, of which I used to subscribe.

Brad:

I might need help with interpretation on this apparently.

My work, like anybody's, including Alex's, should be judged on its accuracy and reliability (or not), not for what awards it has or hasn't won.

Please elaborate.

I thought you were putting down Alex, and in turn putting down Project Censored, which in turn puts yourself down, am I wrong?

Brad also said:

Yes. It's a sign of deep religious belief to Rush Limbaugh as well, as he enjoys telling listeners. It sems you are of a piece with him. Of course, he knows how disingenuous he's being. Jury is still out on you on that score.

Please stop relating me to people that I am disgusted by. I am sure it is not fair to associate you with Ted Turner, who would like to see millions of people dead to help the earth out.

I also have been saying the Green movement is a scam.

Surley you see that?

Compact flourescents = high levels of Mercury, shipped from China and more expensive.

Hybrids that dont get the same gas mileage as a Geo Metro but have batteries filled with toxics that only last 5 - 10 years.

Would it not be better to buy bulbs without toxic elements made in USA and fix old cars and keep them running?

Ok,
I dont know how to incorporate the fact that water amounts never change on Earth into my glass analogy. That is why the ice is included in the glass first. If I add the ice after, it seems to me that I am knowingly changing the water amount.

Any reasonable thoughts are welcome to my honest doubts of my own glass arguement.

In the interest of honest debate:

I asked an environmental engineer today about my glass concept, here is his response,which again I hope you all appreciate because it does not neccesarily support my concept.

1. If the ice cubes are stacked up from the bottom and are stacked higher than the water, than the level of water will rise once the ice cubes melt (as not all of the ice will be contained within the water).

2. If you put a couple of ice cubes in a glass some percentage of the ice cubes will be floating above the water in the glass and when the ice cubes melt the water level will appear to rise (similar to the above statement of not all the ice being contained within the water. Also, this is similar to an ice berg where the majority of the mass is below the water level and only 10% or so is above the water line).

Your best argument would be to consider that the amount of ice in the oceans is more comparable to one or two ice cubes floating in a very large pot. A glass filled with ice would be like saying that 50% of the worlds oceans are filled with ice when really there is probably less than 5% of an ice to ocean ratio (maybe less than 1% for all I know, you could probably research this).

You should probably google something like "ice water melting volume" or something like that to see what happens. I'm sure there would be lots of experiments and information related to ice cubes melting in a glass and water level.

My god is this getting tedious. Doing my best to not move on entirely...Brian said at various:

My assertion of 9/11 is not to change the subject, only to point out that "popular" opinon is often wrong, and so are "scientists."

Nobody argued that "popular" opinion should not be questioned. Nobody argued that "scientists" are always right.

But as you've so far failed to show where scientists --- a huge preponderance of them, thousands of them, working independently, and in different earth science disciplines, all over the globe, and all coming up with the same general thesis/conclusions from all of those different points --- have been proven wrong, as you have suggested, my vote for the moment is to trust in their enormous body of science, rather than your "glass of water" science, and your (and Alex Jones') oft-debunked information on this issue.

I thought you were putting down Alex, and in turn putting down Project Censored, which in turn puts yourself down, am I wrong?

I said, his work and my work should be judged on it's demonstrable accuracy, not on any awards either have received. As I recall, there have been Pulitzer Prize winners who have subsequently been shown to have been wrong and/or faked their work. That is a fact, and by no means denigrates the Pulitzer Prize.

Please stop relating me to people that I am disgusted by.

Then please stop repeating the same propaganda they do. And please take notice of who else it is that utters the same agit prop that you do.

I am sure it is not fair to associate you with Ted Turner, who would like to see millions of people dead to help the earth out.

I am unaware of Ted Turner hoping "to see millions of people dead to help the earth out" (though I can imagine Rush Limbaugh suggesting that he would). Neither would I like to see any such thing. So any attempt to associate him with me on that absurd score would be laughable, ignored, and wouldn't bother me in the slightest.

Are you bothered by the association with Rush? If so, good. I hope you'll take notice of it, and ponder it a while (BEFORE you write your next set of comments here.)

I also have been saying the Green movement is a scam.

Surley you see that?

No, I see no such thing. Are there flaws in green technology? Of course. Are there compromises that need to be made as transitional technologies? Of course. Does that make any of it "a scam"? Not unless you have any actual EVIDENCE to demonstrate it.

But please do us ALL a favor: Before you post what your regard as "EVIDENCE", please Google it to find out what, if any, the debunking has already been ("pre-bunking" as Desi likes to call it), so we don't all have to go out and waste our time by finding you easily found shit from Google that you could have found YOURSELF and educated YOURSELF *before* wasting our time.

Any reasonable thoughts are welcome to my honest doubts of my own glass arguement.

You have already been given them. Over and over (and over) again. Go back and read the thread BEFORE you ask again. Please?

You should also pay attention to your "environment engineer" friend, who is essentially trying to tell you the same thing that at least four of us have now done here, for you, to little avail.

You're welcome.

Look,
My environmental engineer friend did say my point was off, but also offered a better experiment if you read it which might help my original point. He also DOES NOT believe in Anthropologic Global Warming.

But whatever. I am not a scientist, obviously, yet I think my skeptisism is well thought out.

Like I said, I have seen enough corruption and tyranny try to rule my life, and that does include Bush, Cheney, Rush, Gore, U.N., Obama, Rockefeller, Brzinski, and Globalists in general.
Hell I was born in Chile under Pinochet.

Whatever, blow it all off as a Limbaugh psy-op, and lump me together with some other people.

In the interest of moving on, Ill leave this for further reading or investigating, pre-determinations or scrutiny.

On IPCC
Glacier Meltdown: Another Scientific Scandal Involving the IPCC Climate Research Group
and
IPCC Chair Says He Won't Step Down + Glacier Error Not Politically Motivated
and
Another IPCC Scandal - Sea levels NOT rising
and
Rainforest story latest IPCC scandal

On Gore:
Al Gore's New $9 Million Mansion Media Totally Ignored
and
Gore accused of energy hypocrisy
and
The Great Global Warming Swindle
and
Al Gore Slammed By Congress Over Global Warming hoax

I know none of you believe the hacked emails mean anything, but I am sure wondering if you said the same thing for the Goldman Sachs emails?
Or the Nixon tapes...

I think you guys are crazy for trying to blow that off as nothing. Isn't Phil still lying in shame about it all?

Shit, emails were sought after in the Bush Administration, but they deleted them for fear of revealing something - right?

And if anyone has a simple link to the science that says:

"CO2 level increases come before and causes temperartures to rise"

Link it. BUT KEEP POPULAR OPINION and BROAD CONSENSUS statements away please, I dont buy that.

Also, Brad
dont be elusive. WHAT were you saying about Alex Jones exactly? I still am not clear, are you saying he is innacurate?

oh yeah,
I forgot about:

"The World's Source for Global Temperature Record Admits It's Lost or Destroyed All the Original Data That Would Allow a Third Party to" Model Climate

Brad wrote @64

"My god is this getting tedious. Doing my best to not move on entirely..."

_________________________

Brian's illogical mumblings have moved from the inane to the asinine. Any attempt to reason with someone who is impervious to logic, fact and science is pointless.

"Move on entirely" is the only reasonable option on the table.

Continue to buy Carbon credits everyone.

Breath in deep when your compact flourescents break!

And lets try to sell more Toyota Hybrids, which rape the world for RESOURCES, in order to save ourselves. Nevermind that a 3 cylcinder GEO METRO was a much better, longer lasting car that got the same gas mileage.

Sun? It has nothing to do with our temperature. It is just a big dumb rock that emits nothing like SOLAR FLARES or extreme temperatures....

Oh no, GMO seeds, and the destruction of resources for NEW TECHNOLOGIES are neccesary in order for us to survive.

Never Mind that the "leader" of Carbon Credit Trading Al Gore stands to make billions on what he is trying to force on the people of the world. Nevermind that he himself was not even using compact flourescents in 2007. (Maybe because of the Mercury)

Never mind all of it. Just call me crazy.
I will never dare question your religion again.

It would be crazy of me to think any of that is funny, or ridiculous.

Nevermind the fact that I am probably "Greener" than any of you, yet I cant question the C02/temp connection.

Nevermind. Moving on.

Ernest,

When did you find out the Gulf of Tonkin was a lie that killed millions?

Damn, I can only think what might have been if people had EXPOSED THE LIES earlier.

Brian said:

Nevermind. Moving on.

K. See ya! Oh, and thanks for all the predictable/long-ago-debunked links that we've been sent a thousand times and are still nonsense! You've certainly cracked the "scam" wide open! Best of luck to ya.

Brian,

The Sundarban Islands (of which New Moore Island is a part) are sinking. Grown trees (not on New Moore but nearby) are submerging in the ocean. A combination of warmer temperatures, sea level rise and sinking land contribute to the gradual diminishing and/or disappearance of several islands of the area. They are not just sandbars being washed away.

Links to come; I have to go now. Or do some more research yourself.

Jan 2007

Sugata Hazra: “Hazra and his team of researchers, who have studied the region for several years, compiled a study—‘Preparatory Assessment of Vulnerability of the Ecologically Sensitive Sunderban Island System, West Bengal, in the Perpective of Climate Change'—in 2003 in which they say an annual 3.14 mm rise in sea level due to climate change is partly responsible for eating away these islands on the southern fringes of the Sunderbans. The higher than average rise in sea level (which is about 2.0 mm annually worldwide) is because of land subsidence (the caving in or sinking of an area of land through tidal erosion) which is typical of deltaic regions, Hazra says.”

http://www.indiaenvironm...in/content/not-conserved

Nov 3, 2008
Man and tiger in deadly conflict “Thousands of people now enter the forest every day — many of them former rice farmers whose land was flooded with seawater — pushing ever deeper into the tigers' domain.”

http://www.timesonline.c...nment/article5068379.ece

April 4, 2010
Save the Sunderbans “The home of Bengal Tigers and half of the world's mangrove varieties is on the verge of going below water due to sea-level rise induced by climate change.”

http://www.thedailystar....s-details.php?nid=132916

Dr. Hazra: slide show

Lora,
Thanks for the slideshow link, I had not seen that.

I am stil reviewing, but want you to know I appreciate it, really. Though some see me as a demon by now I am sure. Your patience and resolve is not unnoticed.

I would not argue, as it appears this is relating to, the erosion of our soils, and coastlines as a major problem. Deforestation doesnt help protect coastal communities from fierce weather either.

I think Globalisation has only contributed to the problem. Indonesias main exports include cotton and natural rubber, both taking their toll on the islands along with many other factors.

But I wonder another thing. Would we expect the geography of the Earth to stay the same forever?
No, of course not. These are the Indonesian islands we are talking about. The one in question, a sandbar, only appeared in 1970. Is it fair to say that it is man's fault that it appeared? I don't think so. But now that it disappeared thats what one man is boldly trying to imply.

So we all agree on climate change. We all agree that there are serious environmental problems, for which we play a part.

I do sincerely doubt the Dr. Shazra will change my mind, but I am looking.

Thanks again.

I should be clear:
I doubt Hazra will change my mind on the direct link of C02 level increases directly affecting and precipitating temperature rise.

Again, I am with ya on climate change, pollution, GMO seeds, SOOT, and resource depletion, as major problems for our living ecosystem.

Brian.

I appreciate the feedback. Glad we have some points on which we agree. Evidence is all we have to support any claims or theories. How it supports or refutes is often in the hands of the interpreters --- in this case the scientists.

A lot of this stuff is hard to find and verify --- for example the island itself. Is it a sandbar or rocky or what? I hunted for a while and could find no evidence to support either claim. so I would say that question is unanswered. However there seems to be evidence to show that several of the islands in the immediate vicinity are being submerged, in part or totally. Clearly thousands of local inhabitants have been displaced from seas invading their land.

I also checked out the trees. There was a picture often shown in the same articles as those describing the disappeared island that showed grown trees being submerged. I assumed that those trees were on New Moore Island. Many article contained no caption. However I finally found a caption that clarified that they were trees nearby. I fault the press. They weren't clear in their article and it was an easy assumption to make, just not true.

And so it goes. I try to question everything, and above all, look for the evidence.