Entire Antarctic Shelf splitting away from Continent.

[Clem1029]

Clem, as the second in command knuckledragger

Keep up the name calling...it only makes you look more ignorant as you go.

Your pointing out that in five cases, language that qualified some minor aspect of the report was a start in the correct direction, but you failed to make any real point that the qualifying language was in any way pertinent to the issue as a whole rather than the specific instances.

So please, do yourself and your compatriots a favor, since you are determined to make nonsensical arguments.

Since you continue to demonstrate your lack of reading comprehension, allow me to translate those 5 passages (and there's more where that came from...I was just getting bored at demolishing your argument)...and I'll use one of your favorite words to do so:

The science is "irrelevant."

Simply because, it isn't science. Those quotes demonstrate the IPCC is making it up as they go along, that human bias is the critical component to the studies, and they really have no idea what's going to happen.

Science is testable. They haven't provided anything to test, or the tests applied to the theories have failed.

Science is able to be duplicated. You can't duplicate the studies without including the human biases involved.

Science doesn't allow for human bias. It is true or false, demonstrated by it's testability.

The IPCC isn't about science. The entire global warming debate isn't about science. It's about untestable guestwork, and faith.

So no, you don't get to define the terms for the debate. When anyone can make the science mean whatever they want, it ceases to be science. So if you try to continue this debate on the level of "science" provide a completely objective test of a hypothesis that demonstrates AGW theory. Since none exists, you might as well quite this charade.

I know this is difficult for you...it's never nice to see your underlying assumptions to your faith obliterated. But an adult will step back and evaluate, not point fingers and call names. But anyone that has read a handful of your posts can determine this is your MO. If you can't debate honestly, why try?

[kellypope]

You bring up an excellent point about underground wiring. My neighborhood has exactly that. Would that undoubtedly mean an end to electricity and other cable-supplied luxuries? How does one live without refrigeration? Or air-conditioning?

I've been doing a lot of research in sustainable living, especially in tried-and-true methods as opposed to new-fangled digital-era contraptions. I just had the idea about two hours ago to try and build a wind-powered flour mill for my backyard, but using a more efficient design (http://jeienergysolutions.com/MLVAWT_TURBINES.php). I have no idea how I'd build this, I'll cross that bridge when I come to it.

And about groundwater contamination, what exactly is it contaminating the groundwater? Landfills? People burying toxic waste again? Medication in the toilets? Are you familiar with phytoremediation?

[Clem1029]

Again, keep up the mockery...it just reinforces your ignorance. You really, honestly don't get it, do you?

You seem to forget, the burden of proof is not on me to produce contrary evidence. The burden of proof is on you (or rather, your vaunted IPCC) to produce any real, testable, duplicated SCIENCE. You can't provide such evidence. Mainly because it doesn't exist, regardless how much you want to believe it does.

Besides, I've provided a simple standard in this same thread. The IPCC says the "models" (i.e., their guesswork) have some success in modeling the last 150 years. Provide me a model that with 100% accuracy models the last 150 years of data that we DO have, and we'll be able to discuss the predictive capacity of those models going forward. It's an easy standard. It's a standard that can legitimately be called science. And it's a standard that simply hasn't been met.

And until that standard is met, you have no ability to claim your argument is based in "science." If you admitted it was simply it's a faith you believe in, rather than stick to this incessant and false claim that this is real, honest, and actionable science, we might actually be able to have a serious discussion. But as long as you continue to claim that there's real science out there than backs your claims...

...well, it makes sense that you would resort to name calling than have an honest debate.

So mock away, good sir (admittedly, a phrase that's used lightly). I expect nothing less when you can't provide those pesky things called facts in a debate.

[Clem1029]

Ah yes.  Well we will just have to take the famous "Clem Standard" into account from here on out with all the seriousness that it deserves.

I used to spend time with the kid on the playground whose standard argument and point of debate was "Nuh Uh!"

Apparently the practice and patience was hardly for naught.  My childhood self stand corrected in its assumption that rational people grow out of this juvenile practice.

But then again, maybe rational people do, and my childhood self merely made assumptions about Reason and Adults and any actual relationship that the former might have to the latter.

However, the Clem Standard notwithstanding, "Nuh Uh!" still fails to win any arguments for adults any more than it did on the playground of San Pablo elementary.

Once again...mockery continues to demonstrate ignorance.

More importantly, if "nuh uh" is bad, why is that the sum total of your argument. You've provided, in no particular order:

• No facts to back up your argument
• No real science to back up your argument
• No attempt to explain why the standard provided is wrong
• No attempt to provide explain why the IPCC stuff is valid when they say it's completely pointless
• No explanation as to why what you believe is any more than faith

As much as your ego may tell you otherwise, you do not get to set the terms of this discussion. You've made zero attempt to do anything other than mock people. I've answered every argument you've made, and the extent of your response is "nuh uh."

So mock away. Continue to demonstrate your complete lack of intelligence. Continue to pretend that you know what you're talking about. It's OK. We understand you can't help yourself. But if you really want people to take you seriously, you need to try a little bit harder. I mean, yeah, anything is greater than zero...but c'mon...can't you try just a little bit?

[gatorback]

So do I.   But,  I'm worried you are getting mad.  Please don't shot the messenger.

Melting glaciers can cause increasing sea levels and desiccate sources of fresh water depended on for farming, drinking and hydropower uses.

Glacier Flourishes Despite Global Warming

Posted on: Wednesday, 4 February 2009, 08:40 CST

Climate change seems to have no effect on Argentina's huge Perito Moreno glacier, which is flourishing despite the global warming that is melting others around it.

Though the majority of the world's glaciers are thawing away from the warmer temperatures, scientists announced that the Perito Moreno ice field, called "The White Giant," is growing 10 feet daily from deep snowfalls in the Patagonia area.

"Glaciers don't respond solely to temperature changes," Martin Stuefer, a Patagonian expert at the University of Alaska, Fairbanks, told Reuters.

Stuefer said that the area's precipitation is greater than before, and along with the world's climatic alterations, are working together to strengthen the glacier.

"Climate change is not the same everywhere," Stuefer noted.

The Perito Moreno is one of South America’s biggest and certainly the most famous due to its accessibility to tourists even though it is 1,900 miles southwest of Buenos Aires.

Visitors pile into boats to see the 18 mile-long glacier chunk blocks of ice into Lake Argentino.

In contrast, scientists state that 90 percent of the glaciers in Antarctica and Patagonia are melting fast. This is happening also in the Arctic, Andes, Alps, Himalayas and other places from the climate change connected to human activity.

The normal melting rate of the world's glaciers has increased twofold since 2000, the U.N. Environment Program and the World Glacier Monitoring Service announced.

Glaciers are also moved by factors like snowfalls, winds, altitude and shade, and the Perito Moreno is one of few defying the trend.

"A small percentage seems to be doing strange things," said David Vaughan, a British Antarctic Survey glaciologist and member of the United Nations climate panel. "The odd 13 percent are either stable or advancing a little."

190 governments have decided to develop in 2009 a U.N. treaty to reduce and limit fossil fuel emissions and global warming, worrying that increasing seas may flood low-lying islands and coastal cities like Amsterdam and Sydney.

[Clem1029]

Mock mock mock. This is the best you can do? Talk about fish in a freaking barrel.

*snip the mockery*

Restating the argument so far, for the benefit of your catlike intellectual reflexes and the steel trappiness of your attention span:  you quote five instances in a 1500 page scientific treatise which qualified the accuracy of certain projections.  On the basis of this, the entire report is just psuedo religious gobbledee gook and all the scientific data it might or might not contain (you apparently don't know) is automatically devalidated.

1. This is not the argument. You fail to grasp the simple point that the IPCC says the studies could mean ANYTHING. Science that can mean anything means nothing.
2. Just because something is dense means it's automatically valid? If I write a 2000 page study, with tons of charts and graphs based on assumptions I've made, and in one footnote I said "hey, guess what? I'm making this up," you should still take me seriously?
3. Since the IPCC themselves say they're making it up, conveniently burying it in pseudo religious gobbledee gook, and you still buy it -  well, clearly you can be distracting by bright shiny things.
4. When the IPCC says the science is useless, why should I consider it as gospel truth?

You continue to fail to provide any level of evidence.

hmm.   What other examples of models based on weather patterns might there be within a laymans grasp?

Surely we could apply the famous Clem Standard to one of them, and thereby test the Clem Standard by its own measure, since it would only require .001 inaccuracy in order for us to throw out everything else that Clem might have to say on any subject at all.

Lets try the Farmers Almanac.

It too is based on projections based on observed weather patterns and accrued knowledge.  Is it 100 percent correct all the time?  No.

Is it therefore 100 percent incorrect all the time?  Again No.  In fact, it is correct most of the time and a reliable guide for farmers all over this country.

Seemingly, this would call the accuracy of the noble Clem Standard into question, because obviously even farmers can look at the measly record and make fairly accurate predictions.  Even if they arent 100 percent accurate.

Well Im afraid then, that the vaunted Clem Standard, what we all assumed was the gold mint of scientific review must then see if it lives up to the exacting demands of its namesake creator.

If the Clem Standard can be shown to be even .001 percent wrong, then nothing else associated with the corpus Clem should ever be mentioned again.

Clem, I have bad news for you.

You're joking, right? Please tell me you're joking? Please tell me you don't seriously want to compare Farmers Almanac to the IPCC report on global warming.

Oh my goodness, this is going to be fun.

• Does the Farmers Almanac come close to the level of science in the vaunted IPCC report? You really want to make that claim
• Next...what's the model used by the Farmers Almanac? If the comparison is valid, it must involved multiple variables from historical evidence, without any human bias involved.
• Forgive me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the Farmer's Almanac make localized weather predictions, not global climate predictions? Whatever happened to the "climate is different than weather" argument? Or are you admitting that, like all other AGW arguments, is junk?
• Finally, and the most important point here - what happens if I make a decision on the Farmers Almanac and it's slightly off? Anything catastrophic? And exactly how far off is the Farmers Almanac predictions? .001%? 10%? 100%? Over what time frame? 1 year? 10 years? Whatever it's accuracy, it seems like it's more honestly accurate than the FOUR HUNDRED PERCENT variance found in the 100 year prediction of the IPCC report.

So yeah...keep up your cute examples. Since you wouldn't treat the Farmers Almanac with the same gospel faith that you treat the IPCC, then it just becomes a bit of a joke.

Again, you want drastic, global, economically catastrophic actions to combat something that we have no idea might happen. The burden of proof continues to be on you. And the evidence you've provided is a joke. The IPCC admits the evidence is a joke. But you continue to think it's something that must be acted upon NOW to SAVE THE WORLD!!!!

So yeah...go back to your mockery. It's really all you have to save face right now. The rest of us will just sit back and continue to laugh at your less-then-intellectual gymnastics to defend and indefensible position.

[Clem1029]

In one sentence, you've demonstrated why nothing you say in this debate is valid.

A positive series of scientific studies have been presented.

This is not only a false statement, it's an outright lie. And yes, if you advocate this position, you perpetuate the lie.

Let's break it down:

• positive - not so much. The IPCC admits it themselves. It's questionable at best, but far, far from positive.
• scientific - not so much. How many times do we have to go over this? It's not science if it's not testable. The scientific method has very simple standards, and the "series" that you've provided fail on every step.

So, if you continue to base your argument on this statement, then everything else you say is useless. This is not science. It's guess work. It's unprovable. It's faith. The IPCC says this - why can't you accept it? Is it that ingrained in you that your very existence is threatened by contrary evidence? Is your faith that weak?

Mock, mock, mock. Continue to demonstrate you have no idea what you're talking about. This thread is going to be awesome when you try and shout down other people elsewhere on this forum. It's a shame you have to destroy yourself like this.

[Clem1029]

Im sorry Clem, but there isnt much point talking to you.  You are an unworthy debate partner, don't know what you are trying to say, and certainly cant prove whatever it is that you are trying to prove.  Thank you for posting at length so that future readers can realize just how inane some of these arguments are.

This will be my last reply to you...

And the final demonstration that you've won an argument with a lefty - they pretend that the debate is over when they can't answer some simple questions.

We can only hope this is your last post here. You've contributed nothing to the discussion, and flip out and mock when your dear valued faith is threatened. It's a little sad, especially when it reflects poorly on this forum. It's disappointing that good work continues to be hampered and marginalized due to your inability to think straight.

So goodbye. Assuming you actually mean you're done posting. Which would be the first time you actually followed through on something you said.

But who knows? There's a first time for everything.

[kellypope]

Did you ever receive the PM I sent you, Stephen?

[kellypope]

Okay. Okay, okay, okay. All right. I got it. The problem is fixed.

All we have to do is build a gigantic ark. About yea many cubits long, about yea many cubits high, about yea many cubits wide. Then we put all the animals in the zoo on it, and two of every plant, and dock it over by Maxwell House as a tourist attraction till the Flood hits.

Problem. Solved.

[gatorback]

Unfortunately, all the old first growth forest Oak, which would be needed to build such a structure, has been harvested. Pretty ironic.  We got rid of the only one thing that could save us. What a brilliant lesson in sustainability.

[BridgeTroll]

Nobody uses oak to build arks anymore... puleeese...

[Jason]

Alright, I've oficially come to the conclusion that this planet is on the cusp of entering a new ice age.  It is friggin cold outside!  I would actually welcome a bit of global warming right about now.

[kellypope]

Do you remember that it used to snow once in Florida? It hasn't snowed in Jacksonville in about 19 years.

[kellypope]

Interesting read: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/05/icemelt-could-shift-earth_n_164414.html

This could explain the different layers of rock that point North in one layer and South in another. The sheer fact that there are ice ages and warm ages may be responsible for magnetic shifts. So now the new question is, what would a polar shift mean for our planet? Even worse global weirding?