More Proof of Global Warming

This is what happens when Mother Nature fools around with Father Time. Watch the birth……

web page

Amazing thing that mother nature

That was just plain awesome. I’d love to be able to see something like that in person. Unreal.

Awesome video. Too, bad so many here don’t believe in science.

I was in cordova Alaska watching child glacier calf and one huge front wall came off, sounded like a bomb went off when it hit the water and created a huge wave that you did not see coming across the river until it hit the bank. Was awesome! When my wife mentioned we were going to watch glacier falling into the river I was ready to pass thinking how boring, it was not! Truly impressive.

Quote:

---

Awesome video. Too, bad so many here don’t believe in science.

---

What’s that supposed to mean? If you don’t believe in global warming, then you don’t believe in science?

Well that and Gordon is smarter than the rest of us.

WOW! HOLY TITANIC. …rrr

I believe in science but couldn’t it just be the natural progression of our planet?? There has been an Ice Age, and we have progressed into a natural warming of the planet. Do you think that the caveman was the start of “global warming”?

I think it is funny how “scientists” think they can change the Earths climate or atmosphere progression… so when the Ice Age happened, what caused that, lack of hairspray ??? We have been tracking Earths temperatures for less than 2000 years and think we have been at it so long, that we can predict a 4.54 billion years old planets weather tendencies

Here I promised myself I was going to be less combative.

A little internet research will show many glaciers and ice packs growing since 1998. Many times a region of the world will be warming while another cools. But if you are trying to make a point, you will only seek out those that support your beliefs.

I really became skeptical in the years since the infamous hockey stick graph came out. There were a couple different versions and they all had a margin of error. Fast forward and the world temps have all been below the margin for error. What does that tell you?

I think there are many scientist hitting themselves in the head and saying how in hell can we have believe in global warming.Only Gore lovers left

I am happy to believe in global warming, but I was taught in school was that we were entering the next ice age, and nobody bothered to explain to me when the switch happened and why so I am confused …

I just wanted to post a cool video. Not start another lock up thread.

Pug you are absolutely correct, also according to science in studying glacial ice they estimate that the earth is 10,000 years overdue for another ice age. Also, Global Warming is a precursor to an ice and has happened many time in the history of earth; its away of Mother Nature cleaning house per say. The scary thing is that the human population has sped up the global warming process by hundreds of years.

Who said the discovery channel and the internet aren’t a valuable source for information.

First, the video was cool. Thanks.

That being said, how do we really know this is true ?

“The scary thing is that the human population has sped up the global warming process by hundreds of years.”

Help me if I am wrong, but isn’t much of what we are told based on data imported into a computer software program and then directed to make a guess as to the future ? This allows for manipulation as to the outcome doesn’t it ?

This is similar to how weather men / women predict the weather, but in all honesty if they cannot get tomorrow correct on a regular basis I am pretty suspect about 50 years from now.

Quote:

---

I just wanted to post a cool video. Not start another lock up thread.

---

And a very cool video it was

Thanks for posting it.

Quote:

---

Here I promised myself I was going to be less combative.

A little internet research will show many glaciers and ice packs growing since 1998. Many times a region of the world will be warming while another cools. But if you are trying to make a point, you will only seek out those that support your beliefs.

I really became skeptical in the years since the infamous hockey stick graph came out. There were a couple different versions and they all had a margin of error. Fast forward and the world temps have all been below the margin for error. What does that tell you?

---

I’m not aware of any IPCC charts published that show predicted global average temp’s outside a margin of error. Can you point me to them?

Can you also explain what regional increases of snowpack have to do with climate change?

Quote:

---

I just wanted to post a cool video. Not start another lock up thread.

---

You should have came up with a better “title” than More Proof of Global Warning if you didn’t want it to turn into or start out as a political post

That video looks like CGI to me!

Global warming is real

It’s just not caused by mankind

Earth temps are cyclical, anyone with half a brain knows this, but sometimes pushing an agenda trumps honesty.

To the global warming alarmist… What’s the temperature suppose to be?

Quote:

---

I’m not aware of any IPCC charts published that show predicted global average temp’s outside a margin of error. Can you point me to them?

Can you also explain what regional increases of snowpack have to do with climate change?

---

Ok, 1 missed completely. The other 3 were just within the lower boundaries of their margin of error. I over estimated, kind of like the IPCC. They do this for a living, so I would have expected much better results, especially if they were being objective.

An increasing regional snow pack has as much relevance as a receding one. And climate change alarmists like to point out how glaciers are receding in certain areas.

If nothing is challenged, then it is easy to cherry pick and present things as support for a theory.

Personally I do think that there is a little natural climate change going on and any magnification due to man has less to do with CO2 and more to do with the destruction of the rainforests. Tropical rainforests are great buffers and moderator that keep the entire earth protected from extremes.

Quote:

---

yeah, that about sums it up.

---

Science challenges itself all the time. If people just accept theories and facts without challenge, it stunts progress.

Al Gore calls Global Warming Deniers “Flat earthists”. I suggest that he has it backwards.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

I’m not aware of any IPCC charts published that show predicted global average temp’s outside a margin of error. Can you point me to them?

Can you also explain what regional increases of snowpack have to do with climate change?

---

Ok, 1 missed completely. The other 3 were just within the lower boundaries of their margin of error. I over estimated, kind of like the IPCC. They do this for a living, so I would have expected much better results, especially if they were being objective.

An increasing regional snow pack has as much relevance as a receding one. And climate change alarmists like to point out how glaciers are receding in certain areas.

If nothing is challenged, then it is easy to cherry pick and present things as support for a theory.

Personally I do think that there is a little natural climate change going on and any magnification due to man has less to do with CO2 and more to do with the destruction of the rainforests. Tropical rainforests are great buffers and moderator that keep the entire earth protected from extremes.

---

1. I don’t think you overestimated, you just weren’t being objective.

2. The IPCC doesn’t get paid.

3. You’re correct that all science should be challanged. That’s why the IPCC reports combine the results of thousands of peer reviewed studies, and are reviewed by hundreds of unpaied scientists and experts from over a hundred countries.

4. What a joke…THAT’S NOTE EVEN A PUBLISHED IPCC CHART!

Unpaid scientists? I’ve never heard of such a thing. That would be like an unpaid plumber.

Global Warming.
Is the average temp rising? Yep
Is it naturalally accuring? Yep
Are we as humans adding to it? Yep
Is it going to effect anything in the near future? Nope
Should we be worried about it? Who knows… I’m not.

Quote:

---

1. I don’t think you overestimated, you just weren’t being objective.

2. The IPCC doesn’t get paid.

3. You’re correct that all science should be challanged. That’s why the IPCC reports combine the results of thousands of peer reviewed studies, and are reviewed by hundreds of unpaied scientists and experts from over a hundred countries.

4. What a joke…THAT’S NOTE EVEN A PUBLISHED IPCC CHART!

---

1.) I over estimated. I said all were below their margin for error.
2.) I don’t care if they get paid or not, I’ve never brought that up.
3.) Global warming is highly politicized. I don’t trust a highly politicized issue to be completely objective.
4.) It was part of a draft that was leaked according to Fox News. The only thing that was added was the true temperature trend. I suppose one could make Fox News out to be a Red Herring, but if someone can be skeptical of Fox News, then someone can be skeptical of the IPCC and their motives or at least being human.

Quote:

---

Unpaid scientists? I’ve never heard of such a thing. That would be like an unpaid plumber.

---

they don’t get paid to compile the IPCC reports. yes…its a lot like a plumber not getting paid.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Unpaid scientists? I’ve never heard of such a thing. That would be like an unpaid plumber.

---

they don’t get paid to compile the IPCC reports. yes…its a lot like a plumber not getting paid.

---

I thought so. Thanks for clarifying.

I find it very hard to believe that a highly educated professional would dedicate massive amounts of their time toward research they won’t get paid for. Make that hundreds of scientists. One way or another, they are being compensated.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

1. I don’t think you overestimated, you just weren’t being objective.

2. The IPCC doesn’t get paid.

3. You’re correct that all science should be challanged. That’s why the IPCC reports combine the results of thousands of peer reviewed studies, and are reviewed by hundreds of unpaied scientists and experts from over a hundred countries.

4. What a joke…THAT’S NOTE EVEN A PUBLISHED IPCC CHART!

---

1.) I over estimated. I said all were below their margin for error.
2.) I don’t care if they get paid or not, I’ve never brought that up.
3.) Global warming is highly politicized. I don’t trust a highly politicized issue to be completely objective.
4.) It was part of a draft that was leaked according to Fox News. The only thing that was added was the true temperature trend. I suppose one could make Fox News out to be a Red Herring, but if someone can be skeptical of Fox News, then someone can be skeptical of the IPCC and their motives or at least being human.

---

you have a choice…

the IPCC is a compilation of over 6000 peer reviewed scientific and published studies. Its compiled by 100’s of scientists in over a 100 countries.

but you’re skeptical because of un un-sourced supposedly leaked chart that Fox news threw up? FOX!? you’re gonna go with Fox then…

seriously Mike…

p.s. You sure did bring up the pay issue…you said they do it for a living…that’s false…they have other jobs where they get paid. They compile the IPCC for free.