One Of The Biggest Icebergs Has Broken Loose In Antarctica

Post Reply New Topic

Actually, the hazard that near-Earth asteroids and meteors pose is very real. It is true that it remains unlikely that one of sufficient size to cause catastrophic results (ex. wipe out a major city) will hit us within the near future, but the probability is very far from being zero, and the (very real - unlike in the case of "climate change") consequences would be more than most nations could cope with.

As for A.I., yes, that is just a media-hyped fantasy, and nothing more.

Let's be frank. Its hard to come up with a come back to rebuff 97% of scientists. That's about as strong a consensus based on "physics and chemistry" as you can possibly get.

Bolt and Abbott appear more to fit your description of spouting "simple-minded nonsense" as neither of them are even remotely qualified to be giving advice on observed temperature changes. People listen to these idiots at their own peril.

You're right. Zombies are far more likely to be real than anthropogenic global warming, so the two should not be compared.

This isn't an argument though! How can you people not see that?! It's a logical fallacy to simply assert something like, "Oh, but Stephen Hawking - and he's very smart - says such-and-such, so it MUST be true." If 100% of climate scientists (or any other kind of scientist for that matter) told you that the Earth was, after all, flat, would you unquestioningly believe them?

Cyberdad, where did the "97% of climate scientists say global warming is real" come from anyway? Do you know the source? How was this percentage arrived at? It, to me, seems eerily similar to a recent claim made that 85% of Russians love Vladimir Putin, and support him in everything he does, or that 100% of North Koreans really love their fat, ugly, moronic leader.

Yes, if ice that is found on land (ex. Greenland, Antarctica) is added to the oceans of the world, then there will be an appreciable increase in sea levels due to the source of that increase coming from outside the system, but ice that is already a part of that system (ex. Arctic ice) would make no difference whatsoever. Ice cubes that are added to a glass of water will cause it to overflow, but ice that is already within the glass, when it melts, will just alter the ratio of ice to water within the glass, but no overflow will occur.

It's basic high school physics. Archimedes Principle combined with the conservation of mass principle.

An article that was specifically designed to garner an emotional response from its readers. Very few, if any, objective facts are within it. There is, however, this -



Ahhh yes, it's all "the West's fault", and now they - or I should say we - must pay up. Of course. If you give us money, and lots of it, and allow us to "resettle", we won't take you to court. Global warming enthusiasts always say "follow the money trail" when it comes to us "deniers", but I think the same method can be - and should be - applied here. Who stands to benefit?

This whole global-warming business is nothing but a scam. I really do wish more people would wake up to that reality.

Probably more like intentional media sensationalism to cash in on peoples predilection for hysteria.



No. Whether it's based on a possible realistic scenario or an imaginary scenario, people have always had a preoccupation with apocalypse.



Whatever the case or source or type; real, possible or imaginary, people have always been obsessed with end of the world scenarios.

Last edited by EzraS on 27 Jul 2017, 10:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.

It would be interesting to see the numbers on how much cash gets generated out of this and where it goes, who it goes to, how it's being used.

It's called liability.Since the West and China are the biggest polluters it's only right they should pay for the mess they created.
I would hope the money goes to green energy and research.I wouldn't doubt some gets trickled into pockets,but that's the way it always is.Someone always wants to profit from misery.

On a side note,everyone knows zombies are caused by climate change. It happens when their graves flood and the coffins pop out of the ground.
Those aren't the zombies you should worry about.
http://www.poynter.org/2016/despite-fac ... st/443460/

We are on the beginning of a mass extinction. The average global temperature has been increasing dramatically since the industrial revolution.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction

Nobody thought Y2K would do anything of much. I work in the IT industry and did back in the late 90's, there was absolutely no concern that anything would happen. If there was then industries would have put themselves on hold before midnight so as to 'protect' themselves, airlines would never have risked having people in the sky at midnight etc, but they all did, because they knew nothing would happen as they were not terrified fools that believed a couple of tabloids who are famous for trying to trick people with scare stories.

In my office (large American IT company) Y2K was nothing more than a source of fun and lolz. People had cuddly bugs dotted around with 'millennium bug' written on and it became the comedy answer to anything you didn't know ("anyone know where Jeff went?" - "millennium bug must have got him" etc)

Midnight 1999 we had no additional people on our helpdesk and no one on call.

Last edited by Biscuitman on 28 Jul 2017, 11:28 am, edited 2 times in total.

The only thing you had to do to offset Y2K, basically, was to make the year a 4-digit rather than a 2-digit number.

it's a step in the right direction, can't wait til we're extinct

True, but it's got nothing to do with global warming, and everything to do with poor planning, carelessness, and outright criminal behaviour (ex. the destruction of the forests of Borneo leading to the demise of the orangutan).



Yes, because the Little Ice Age came to an end at approximately the time industrialisation really got going in Europe. The fallacy post hoc, ergo propter hoc (i.e. "after the fact, therefore because of the fact") is one you should familiarise yourself with. Also this other cliche - "correlation does not equal causation".

any population of life forms that rise to plague proportions will suffer a mass die off for one reason or another.

either they eat all the food available, or they die due to pollution of their nests with waste, or they die from some bacterial semblance that goes wild with them.

everything is self checking in it's population, but man tries to extend the boundaries so he is not bound by this rule.

but man can not win out.

one may consider that the "dinosaurs" lasted for about 180 million years, but each particular species of dinosaur had nowhere near that length of time (except for very few like crocodilians) of existence.

people wonder what man may be like in 10,000 years time.
i do not think that humans can survive that long.

if there is no restriction of population growth due to technology, then we will all "eat each other out of house and home".

geological cycles are so slow that it is impossible to model them with any extraneous accuracy.

there are geological effects that slowly effect climate over millions of years, and for us to think we have any real control over it is bizarre.

like when south america joined with mexico and cut the prevailing ocean current off at the time, it was a very difficult thing for the world to adjust to (incidentally, i am surprised that there is no forceful pressure on the pacific side of the panama canal that is unstoppable).

anyway, this ice sheet break off thing is inevitable as i said, once it reaches a certain size (or distance from the coast).
ocean swells and ebbs and flows set up destructive harmonics that break the shelf off, and another new one will grow in it's place.

as far as the glacial recession is concerned, i must read more into it (not to determine whether man is responsible), and see whether the glaciers we see reported as receding are only a small percentage of glaciers that exist in the world.
if it is the case they they are being selective in their reporting, then i must also say that nothing stays the same forever, and some glaciers disappear and others appear over a long period of time.

even in an intermediate glacial period.