Entire Antarctic Shelf splitting away from Continent.

[RiversideGator]

I love the mental gymnastics the Left engages in.  If there is warming it is manmade global warming (MMGW), if there is cooling it is MMGW, if there are any unusual weather events again it is MMGW.  There is simply no way they can lose.   

Of course, this all just illustrates the fraud which is the MMGW theory. 

[gatorback]

I trust the measurements of the US NAVY.  If there was no thinning around that period I buy it.  I feel a measure is a measure irrespective of the instrument used,  sonar, or a measuring stick., etc.

[BridgeTroll]

Sure I trust USN numbers.  The first submerged transit of the North Pole was by USS Nautilus in 1958.  So that gives us actual data from 1958 to to 2009.  That give us 50 years of accurate polar sea ice data...  Seems a rather small sampling...

[gatorback]

Sure it might be small compared to say the precession of the Earth's Rotation Axis--about 26,000 years.  I would love to see 52,000 years of data but we don't have it.  What trends do we see with the data we have?

[BridgeTroll]

What trends do we see with the data we have?

If you would have taken a very small snippet of data regarding my entire life to date... and picked one from my teen years the trend would not have looked very hopeful...

[Charleston native]

Indeed, River. What's even funnier is that they use science fiction as a crutch to find legitimacy to their beliefs. Let's suppose this statement is true: "Like much science fiction, The Day After Tomorrowâ,,¢ is based on some solid scientific fact." Interesting. What scientific facts are used as a basis for Star Wars?

[Charleston native]

Wow. The article still does not address ice thickness/depth...I'm going to read it more carefully before I make my opinion, though.

[civil42806]

Try this...

"How can global warming cause cold weather? Without the thermohaline circulation, not as much heat would be transported from the tropics to the North Atlantic region. We don’t know how much of this cooling would be balanced by the simultaneous warming in the atmosphere. While it is possible there would be cooling in the North Atlantic region, it is considered more likely that it would continue to warm, but more slowly than the rest of the world."

http://www.pewclimate.org/dayaftertomorrow.cfm

or

"Like much science fiction, The Day After Tomorrowâ,,¢ is based on some solid scientific fact."

http://www.wunderground.com/education/thedayafter.asp

any other questions?

I stand corrected before your magesty L)OL   good god the day after tommorrow?

[tufsu1]

ok...let's assume that global warming is just a theory...please explain why it would be so bad to be a bit more environmentally responsible...and remember that if you're wrong and we do nothing it will likely be too late!

[gatorback]

Would you rather spend $750B US on curbing CO2 emissions or giving it to your friends on Wall Street with no oversight? I'm thinking Wall Street at the moment.  I need a job. Who cares about GW when I can't afford gas or a car.

[BridgeTroll]

Would you rather spend $750B US on curbing CO2 emissions or giving it to your friends on Wall Street with no oversight? I'm thinking Wall Street at the moment.  I need a job. Who cares about GW when I can't afford gas or a car.

Your paragraph gator gets to the point very quickly and clearly.  Is a concern for those with nothing else to worry about.  It very quickly becomes low on the priority list when simply trying to exist.  The answer to your question about how to spend $750B was clearly answered.

[tufsu1]

but what if spending $ to curb GW actually helped the economy?

Since that isn't even really a question, than the answer seems to be a no brainer as well....just do it!   

[Charleston native]

The obtuseness with some of these comments is astounding. Spending our taxpayer money to "curb CO2 emissions" is basically the government taking our money and then undercutting us even more by screwing other businesses. We reap the costs that businesses incur through increased prices. Trust me, I work contracts with suppliers. You actually think that spending government money to hurt more businesses is going to STIMULATE the economy?!?!? WTF?! You've got some serious mental gymnastics going on with that concept.

We have already cut our CO2 emissions in great ways, and we pollute far less than many other industrialized countries. When is it enough? Again, as I've repeatedly offered, spending money on proven, clean, and affordable technology, i.e. nuclear power, would be the best thing. THAT would stimulate the economy. But again, it doesn't fit the agenda of the left. No, we should rely on primitive technology like windmills and weak technology like solar cells, which are very toxic (i.e. hamrful to the environment) to make.  All because of a theory that has been mandated by government entities to be accepted as law.

[RiversideGator]

but what if spending $ to curb GW actually helped the economy?

Since that isn't even really a question, than the answer seems to be a no brainer as well....just do it! 

Except it doesnt help the economy.  It would retard the economy.

[gatorback]

I think our economy is pretty much retarded right now anyway, so sure spend more money to curb C02 and create jobs.  It's happening regardless if you want want it.