Hackers Expose Global Warming Fraud

hickoryhouse · December 9, 2009

I think I understand where you are trying to go with the bolded statement, but I have to disagree with that. I think what you are saying is true about any submerged glaciers/ice, because in essence the ice has already had it's impact on sealevel because it is a part of the sea. However, I think that the part of glaciers/ice blocks that is not submerged would have an impact on sea level. It would in essence be holding an ice cube above your soda and letting it slowly melt into the glass, raising the level.

Only assuming that the glacier that you are speaking about are not in the water at all. The mass of the entire glacier, that happens to be on the water and otherwise know as icebergs, would be displaced regardless of how much of it is above the water. This is similar to the way a boat floats, Archimedes and all that. Now if you were speaking of glaciers that are on land, then you have a point, that water has to go somewhere.

howstuffworks.com

KingDL1 · December 9, 2009

Only assuming that the glacier that you are speaking about are not in the water at all. The mass of the entire glacier, that happens to be on the water and otherwise know as icebergs, would be displaced regardless of how much of it is above the water. This is similar to the way a boat floats, Archimedes and all that. Now if you were speaking of glaciers that are on land, then you have a point, that water has to go somewhere.
howstuffworks.com

I guess it is semantics, I was taught that glaciers are on land and when they get to the sea they may become icebergs. And ice formed on the sea was ice pack, or sea ice, that if broken became icebergs. Now if a glacier pushes into the sea and does not break up I thought the part resting on the sea was then called ice pack. I understood that most if not all glaciers would break off to some degree when reaching the sea.

Censored by Laurie · December 9, 2009

I guess it is semantics, I was taught that glaciers are on land and when they get to the sea they may become icebergs. And ice formed on the sea was ice pack, or sea ice, that if broken became icebergs. Now if a glacier pushes into the sea and does not break up I thought the part resting on the sea was then called ice pack. I understood that most if not all glaciers would break off to some degree when reaching the sea.

Essentially this.

Glaciers are on land...save for tidewater glaciers, which are essentially massive iceburgs.

If glaciers melt, water levels rise. Very simple.

KingDL1 · December 9, 2009

Essentially this.
Glaciers are on land...save for tidewater glaciers, which are essentially massive iceburgs.
If glaciers melt, water levels rise. Very simple.

That is my understanding, and agree.

But I figure hell must be freezing over.

yyz28 · December 9, 2009

This poll has all the data I need.
Ohh...and in video form.

LOL! so the fact that they made a mistake with the graphic is what's important -

...not the fact that in the Rasmussen poll, a 59% majority believe that global warming data is manipulated and isn't real?

Interesting take on the data presented.

Censored by Laurie · December 9, 2009

LOL! so the fact that they made a mistake with the graphic is what's important -
...not the fact that in the Rasmussen poll, a 59% majority believe that global warming data is manipulated and isn't real?
Interesting take on the data presented.

No...the important thing is that some people, in this case you, would look at this poll and still assume that the 59% is accurate despite the fact that the poll adds up to 120%...while at the same time attempting to make a point about statistical validity.

Its known as irony and it amuses me.

cwb · December 9, 2009

The oceans also rise when we go pee-pee.

SAVE VENICE! HOLD YOUR PEE-PEE!

yyz28 · December 9, 2009

No...the important thing is that some people, in this case you, would look at this poll and still assume that the 59% is accurate despite the fact that the poll adds up to 120%...while at the same time attempting to make a point about statistical validity.
Its known as irony and it amuses me.

No, you clearly haven't read the actual poll. Yes, Fox reported it wrong, as they added somewhat likely and very likely and then reported that number as "very likely" and still had a number for "somewhat likely". Let me put it to you another way. The POLL ITSELF didn't add up to 120%. A news organization reported that it did, but the actual poll, which you can find on Rasmussen's site if you'd bother to check, is a good poll. Rasmussen has an impeccable reputation as a pollster. ...but to pretend that Fox misreporting the poll invalidates the poll or somehow makes it any less valid is... well... Ironic. ...and it amuses me.

Rasmussen Reports has been following the debate closely in recent weeks. According to their research Americans are somewhat hesitant to accept the evidence behind global warming just as they see divisions within the scientific community. 52% of those polled believed that disagreements amongst scientists persist against just 25% who think they do not. 59% of the American public also feels it is at least somewhat likely that a number of scientists have falsified research data to prove their own theories and beliefs.

KRAM1 · December 9, 2009

Stop this argument now...it is going nowhere...it's as simple as the difference between conservatives and liberals on this issue:

If a conservative thinks there is more to the global warming question he/she tries to read all the evidence on both sides...if a liberal believes in global warming they fudge the data so everyone WILL accept their position....

Don't ever let the "other side" actually present their research as it might actually lead to the truth...I've got it now...seems to me the kids got caught with their hand in the cookie jar! Pretty funny!

BeanCounterGrad'03 · December 9, 2009

Stop this argument now...

Promise?

Don't ever let the "other side" actually present their research as it might actually lead to the truth.

Pot meet kettle.

Edited December 9, 2009 by BeanCounterGrad'03

HoustonEagle · December 10, 2009

OK, well, first... it's dangerous to assume anything. I do own land.
Second, if your ice cubes melt in your soda, does the soda spill over the edge of your glass? No. The ice cube displaces liquid to support itself. SAME THING WITH GLACIERS. Ever single glacier in the world could melt and the sea levels would not rise one inch.

For your sake I am really hoping you regret saying that. I mean we all have our moments and don't think something through before we spout off. Could this possibly be one of those times for you?

Well regardless how misinformed you are I will always appreciate the work you did to get the stadium passed.

Go Mean Green!

Edited December 10, 2009 by HoustonEagle

BeanCounterGrad'03 · December 10, 2009

Well regardless how misinformed you are I will always appreciate the work you did to get the stadium passed.

:flowers:

UNT90 · December 10, 2009

Just a thought, but assuming global temperatures are rising, I would assume that would mean less overall cloud cover, which would mean less overall rain, which would mean less overall runoff into the oceans, which would mean a decrease in ocean levels? Also, with the increase in temperatures, would there not also be an increase of evaporation rate, and shouldn't that increase cloud cover, which should decrease temperatures?

Such a vicious cycle.

cwb · December 10, 2009

What's so wrong with growing mangos in Minnesota?

HoustonEagle · December 10, 2009

Just a thought, but assuming global temperatures are rising, I would assume that would mean less overall cloud cover, which would mean less overall rain, which would mean less overall runoff into the oceans, which would mean a decrease in ocean levels? Also, with the increase in temperatures, would there not also be an increase of evaporation rate, and shouldn't that increase cloud cover, which should decrease temperatures?

Such a vicious cycle.

No, it's called the hydrologic cycle. You can learn more about this phenomenon in a place we like to call the 5th grade. In regards to rising ocean waters you must unlock trapped water molecules like those found in frozen water sitting on land. Glaciers might be a good example of trapped water molecules on land.

UNT90 · December 10, 2009

No, it's called the hydrologic cycle. You can learn more about this phenomenon in a place we like to call the 5th grade. In regards to rising ocean waters you must unlock trapped water molecules like those found in frozen water sitting on land. Glaciers might be a good example of trapped water molecules on land.

Thanks. Sarcasm, you can learn more about that in the 5th grade, also..

Shall we both go back together, oh wise one?

UNTflyer · December 10, 2009

And once again, Gore outright lies in the Global Warming Hoax.

Al Gore has studied the Climategate emails with his typically rigorous eye and dismissed them as mere piffle:
Q: How damaging to your argument was the disclosure of e-mails from the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia University?
A: To paraphrase Shakespeare, it’s sound and fury signifying nothing. I haven’t read all the e-mails, but the most recent one is more than 10 years old. These private exchanges between these scientists do not in any way cause any question about the scientific consensus.
And in case you think that was a mere slip of the tongue:
Q: There is a sense in these e-mails, though, that data was hidden and hoarded, which is the opposite of the case you make [in your book] about having an open and fair debate.
A: I think it’s been taken wildly out of context. The discussion you’re referring to was about two papers that two of these scientists felt shouldn’t be accepted as part of the IPCC report. Both of them, in fact, were included, referenced, and discussed. So an e-mail exchange more than 10 years ago including somebody’s opinion that a particular study isn’t any good is one thing, but the fact that the study ended up being included and discussed anyway is a more powerful comment on what the result of the scientific process really is.
In fact, thrice denied:
These people are examining what they can or should do to deal with the P.R. dimensions of this, but where the scientific consensus is concerned, it’s completely unchanged. What we’re seeing is a set of changes worldwide that just make this discussion over 10-year-old e-mails kind of silly.
In fact, as Watts Up With That shows, one Climategate email was from just two months ago. The most recent was sent on November 12 - just a month ago. The emails which have Tom Wigley seeming (to me) to choke on the deceit are all from this year. Phil Jones’ infamous email urging other Climategate scientists to delete emails is from last year.
How closely did Gore read these emails? Did he actually read any at all? Was he lying or just terribly mistaken? What else has he got wrong?

UNT90 · December 10, 2009

And once again, Gore outright lies in the Global Warming Hoax.

He will rest well tonight in his huge home outside of Nashville.

And it looks like political pressure, not a fear of global warming, has caused Mr. Gore to get a LEED certificate, after the details of how much energy was used by his mansion made the rounds.

http://www.thedailygreen.com/environmental...-house-47062202

But he is rich, smarter than you, and is fighting for the cause, so he deserved it.

Edited December 10, 2009 by UNT90