Where do these people come up with this crap? Sea level was rising much faster 8,000 years ago.
File:Holocene Sea Level.png – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Recent Comments
Nicholas McGinley on “The world began to end… Nicholas McGinley on “The world began to end… Nicholas McGinley on “The world began to end… saveenergy on What’s At Stake? willys36 on “The world began to end… Morgan Wright on Climate Homicide saveenergy on Climate Homicide saveenergy on Homophobic Gas Walter on Protecting Endangered Species Morgan Wright on Artificial Stupidity
The warmists grasp a little piece of information and start on a rant , run out of things to say and then you find out what they really know as they begin making statements outside the realm of reality . Thankfully you and some other blogs are out here everyday laying out the facts and exposing their inconsitancies and out right fabrications .
Glen is part of the Skeptical Science team. They only look at data that comports with their confirmation bias.
Glenn Tamblyn thinks thicker arctic sea ice should result in lower sea levels. And how would that work?
Ice heaps up & pushes down on the water, lowering sea-levels, obviously.
Carefull there Stark , the alarmists will take that as scientific fact . 🙂
Patently wrong Stark! Ice floats in water because ice takes up 10% more space than liquid water, which is why you only see 10% of an iceberg. The difference is balanced out. The ice isn’t pushing down on anything as the water surrounding it gets out of the way.
Try this experiment that the warmists won’t because it infringes on their reality:
Drop an ice cube into a glass of room temp water, immediately measure the level on the side of the glass (make a line with a texta), wait for the ice to melt and water temp to return to normal. You’ll find there’s no difference. Melting sea ice/icebergs from anywhere will make no difference to sea levels and sea water freezing into ice doesn’t affect sea levels either.
Thousands of years ago sea levels were lower due to an ice age, allowing the Aboriginal tribes in my country to migrate from Papua New Guinea to Cape York Australia, crossing the area that’s largely underwater now sans a few islands such as Thursday Island.
It’s like Reagan said, “Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn’t so.”
One thing I can say about our conservative friends: They tend to be mediocre actors.
Case in point: Ronald Reagan.
Yeah and Clint Eastwood too! /sarc There you go again, proving Reagan right.
Clint Eastwood wasn’t a good actor.
Clint Eastwood is an awesome personality. But he had little acting range.
And why are liberals better actors? Isn’t it because they are comfortable being told by someone else how to think and what to say? Hence why so many in Hollywood simply parrot the latest liberal views and talking points – saves the work of seeking truth for themselves.
I think earlier Hollywood it was more mixed.
Stewart was a republican from what I understand. Paul Newman was a Democrat.
Perhaps that started to change in the 60’s or 70’s. Republicans started become action stars. Think Stallone, Arnold and Kurt Russell.
I want to point out that I was just doing some ribbing.
In the end, it doesn’t matter to me. I own probably 10-15 John Wayne films and he was about as republican minded as actors get get.
I was never a fan of Reagan movies, and I do not quote movie lines of his. I put more stock in good presidents than people who play pretend for a living. But then I think, where others simply feel.
Let’s hope Obama can find an acting job outside of the White House next year.
We haven’t had a good President since before Nixon.
Yeah, and man causes global climate change… 😉
Yeah rockblue81, that last thing about John Wayne sounds a bit like “some of my best friends are black”. If you have to credential yourself, whether others believe it not, you sure believe that they could.
John Wayne was a mediocre actor a great deal of the time. I liked his performance in The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance, The Searchers and The Shootist. Other movies like Rio Bravo, The Angel and the Badman and some others are good. But it’s not like they’re good because on his performance.
http://www.wtffinance.com/2011/03/ronald-reagan-hypocrisy-the-deficit-spending-anti-free-market-conservative/
I am more than familiar with leftist spin. WTF Finance was founded by Jesse Lauriston Livermore, who shot and killed himself because as he said in his suicide note, ‘I am a failure.’ This was after leaving his first wife and children high and dry.
I’ll stick with Reagan.
You can do that if you want, but he was still a bad President.
“Whichever party is in charge the trend is clear: blame the previous administration for the woes of the economy, promise to reign in government control and budgets, promise to change the direction the government has been taking only to continue along the same path of increasing the size, role, and cost of the government.”
Doesn’t sound very leftist to me.
It is sad that you cannot tell spin from truth, and how to tell from whence it comes. It does explain alot though.
Ron Paul on Ronald Reagan in 1988:
I am a libertarian, and even I consider Paul more than a little nutty. You are getting way OT.
His stab at Reagan is justified. Paul is a way smarter guy than Ronald was. Paul sticks to his convictions. Paul seems like an honest man to me and he is not a liberal. Yet, he has been critical of Reagan also. He possibly would take Ronnie over Obama and that’s more than an acceptable argument.
Neither party represents freedom now. It’s ok to have booze even though almost nothing but bad comes from it. Yet, pot gets you thrown in the slammer. Even Obama is on this bandwagon.
The parties are fine with prostitution being illegal. Again, people are being told what they can or cannot use thier bodies for. That’s not freedom.
We’re told that abortions are wrong, but its ok to invade other countries and if children get killed it’s an acceptable loss.
Hey, at least the right is up front with their pro war agenda. I guess that counts for something.
The left refuse to cut entitlements and I do think they have long since crossed the line on attacking the rich. Their anti war stance is mostly a lie. It’s for show.
As far as this being off topic goes, these same arguments go on daily. I don’t see how some other discussion is harmful.
13m in 1000 years between 8k and 7k ago. That’s 1.3cm per year. Now, if you believe the current rate is >1.3cm per year, then you’ll be convinced it’s worse now than when huge ice shields were collapsing…
You have to admire people who can ignore 8 studies based on historical empirical measurement, because the conclusions were opposite to the ones they wanted, then focus on the 2 papers based on model extrapolations. The best part is where they then add that they are defending the integrity of science against the evil denier community. 😉
Too bad the “deniers” are winning and the science is on our side 😉
Sea level is steadily rising, there’s no real acceleration so far. This is what the scientists are saying.
This Glen dude suffers from argumetum ad ignoratum. Instead of actually looking at historical sea levels, he just assumes that it “hasn’t been like this for 15,000 years”. Sea levels in reality are declining, despite the fact that the world is “warming” (World temps have been flat). Then, without offering any evidence, he goes into argumentum ad hominem, assuming that Steve knows nothing.
I’ve seen no evidence of sea level decline except for relatively short inter-decadal variability, however there is no evidence of acceleration relative to the last 50+ years. That’s the key claim alarmists make, which as far as I can work out is fact free.