Entire Antarctic Shelf splitting away from Continent.

[gatorback]

Do you remember tobacco hiding the effects of smoking? Because that is what the article is talking about.  Big oil hiding the effects on CO2 so we couldnt make informed decissions. 

[BridgeTroll]

Smoking is a choice.  A luxury.  A vice.  It is in no way comparable to energy production.  None... nada... zip.

[gatorback]

Then why did big tabacco pay $200 Billion. That Billion.  With a B. BHILLION??? 200.

[vicupstate]

Smoking is a choice.  A luxury.  A vice.  It is in no way comparable to energy production.  None... nada... zip.

You are missing the point entirely.  Most likely on purpose. 

The product is not the issue. The point is that the tobacco industry used deliberate  deception to protect itself and it's livelyhood.  The lawsuit asserts that the energy industry has done the same.

Considering the energy industry is far larger than the tobacco industry ever was, why is it not possible to think they would stoop to that same level, to protect themselves.

Now that the point has been explained to you, please speak to it. 

[Ocklawaha]

Can't we all just get along and live in Tipi's?

OCKLAWAHA

[BridgeTroll]

I am missing no point... Vic.  Perhaps you are.  You see the energy companies are not producing electricity and enticing us to use it.  No one is building power plants hoping someone buys it.  There is not a deceptive marketing ploy to get us to use ever increasing amounts of electricity so "big power" has us hooked.

YOU demanded it... WE demanded it... THEY simply supplied what we wanted and demanded.  YOU should be sued... I should be sued for Using the inordinate amounts of electricity we do.

The same with oil and gas... WE created the demand... THEY supplied it.

[BridgeTroll]

Assuming of course we can do without red M&Ms(electricity/ transportation fuel) or there is a substitute for the red.(electricity / transportation fuel)

That is really the issue here.  Are you telling me that society does not know that power plants cause pollution??  Of course they do... The risks and REWARDS have been weighed foe over a hundred years...

[BridgeTroll]

no and no...

[Jason]

Bah Humbug!

[RiversideGator]

And yet, sea ice is now back at 1979 levels:

Sea Ice Ends Year at Same Level as 1979

Michael Asher - January 1, 2009 11:31 AM

Rapid growth spurt leaves amount of ice at levels seen 29 years ago.

Thanks to a rapid rebound in recent months, global sea ice levels now equal those seen 29 years ago, when the year 1979 also drew to a close.

Ice levels had been tracking lower throughout much of 2008, but rapidly recovered in the last quarter. In fact, the rate of increase from September onward is the fastest rate of change on record, either upwards or downwards.

The data is being reported by the University of Illinois's Arctic Climate Research Center, and is derived from satellite observations of the Northern and Southern hemisphere polar regions.

Each year, millions of square kilometers of sea ice melt and refreeze. However, the mean ice anomaly -- defined as the seasonally-adjusted difference between the current value and the average from 1979-2000, varies much more slowly. That anomaly now stands at just under zero, a value identical to one recorded at the end of 1979, the year satellite record-keeping began.

Sea ice is floating and, unlike the massive ice sheets anchored to bedrock in Greenland and Antarctica, doesn't affect ocean levels. However, due to its transient nature, sea ice responds much faster to changes in temperature or precipitation and is therefore a useful barometer of changing conditions.

Earlier this year, predictions were rife that the North Pole could melt entirely in 2008. Instead, the Arctic ice saw a substantial recovery. Bill Chapman, a researcher with the UIUC's Arctic Center, tells DailyTech this was due in part to colder temperatures in the region. Chapman says wind patterns have also been weaker this year. Strong winds can slow ice formation as well as forcing ice into warmer waters where it will melt.

Why were predictions so wrong? Researchers had expected the newer sea ice, which is thinner, to be less resilient and melt easier. Instead, the thinner ice had less snow cover to insulate it from the bitterly cold air, and therefore grew much faster than expected, according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center.

In May, concerns over disappearing sea ice led the U.S. to officially list the polar bear a threatened species, over objections from experts who claimed the animal's numbers were increasing.

http://www.dailytech.com/Article.aspx?newsid=13834

[tufsu1]

So now you're hanging your hat on increase in one quarter vs. several years of loss....and yet you scold the global wearming folks for only looking at data over the last 50 years or so?

Tell you what...let me know how much Arctic ice exists next summer...and then maybe you'll have a case.

[RiversideGator]

No.  I am saying that, after 30 years of precise satellite measurements, sea ice levels are exactly where they were in 1979.  You can draw your own conclusions as to what this means.  I for one certainly find that this bolsters the very persuasive argument against the GW theory.

[gatorback]

Malarkey.  The ice has no depth.  Satellites don't measure how thick the ice is.  Today's ice is thin and melts faster.  So you see, Riverside, you either don't read or just want to promote misinformation.

[gatorback]

Ha ha.  Check this out, from the article above "Each year, millions of square kilo meters of sea ice melt and refreeze."  Well, let's give them that. Real scientists are concerned with volume, as in cubic kilo meters.  Notice they don't mention that the ice is so thin...Great article River.

[RiversideGator]

It is you who is having trouble reading.  Let me give you a chart to simplify matters for you: