another warning shot from mother nature....

[i'va biggen]

Originally Posted by i'va biggen

GPS instruments placed there are indicating the ice melt is resulting in the land under them to rise. Has been in the last decade.

Originally Posted by LexusLover

Did he post the following statement?

."the observed "rebounding" effect is over 10 times faster than was expected given the amount of ice lost."

My apologies to Iva-little-One and BigTits ... I must have missed it!

So the "ice loss" cannot account for the Earth's crust "rebounding"!!!!

I thought Iva-Little-One said just the opposite!!!!!!

Here's what I posted ...

"Or is the land rising and pushing up the ice, ..."

Ask BigTits ...

if he can see through sand from 7,000 miles away ......

.........peering through ice should be a "walk in the park"!!!

Will you two fucktards please read the original statement, quit taking out of context and fuck off. dimatards two...

[IIFFOFRDB]

Scientists Respond to the Obama Administration’s 2014 National Climate Assessment


Read the 5 reasons why Ocommie is full of shit...
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/05/1...te-assessment/

Posted on May 19, 2014 by Anthony Watts
National_Climate_Assessment_lo goThe National Climate Assessment - 2014 (NCA) is a masterpiece of marketing that shows for the first time the full capabilities of the Obama Administration to spin a scientific topic as they see fit, without regard to the underlying facts. With hundreds of pages written by hundreds of captive scientists and marketing specialists, the administration presents their case for extreme climate alarm. This is a rebuttal drafted by 14 independent meteorology and climatology experts.

As independent scientists, we know that apparent evidence of “Climate Change,” however scary, is not proof of anything. Science derives its objectivity from robust logic and honest evidence repeatedly tested by all knowledgeable scientists, not just those paid to support the administration’s version of “Global Warming,” “Climate Change,” “Climate Disruption,” or whatever their marketing specialists call it today.

We are asked to believe that humans are drastically changing the earth’s climate by burning fossil fuels. The problem with their theory is very simple: It is NOT true.

Here we address the administration’s basic thesis and the essential evidence that they claim support extreme concern.

The theory of ‘Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming’ (CAGW) is based on a string of inferences that begins with the assumptions that carbon dioxide is a ‘greenhouse gas’ and that we are slowly driving up the atmospheric concentration by burning fossil fuels. It is therefore claimed as self-evident that the Global Average Surface Temperature (GAST) has already risen significantly and will continue to do so. Higher GAST is then presumed to lead to all sorts of negative consequences, especially Extreme Weather. They promote their ‘Climate Models’ as a reliable way to predict the future climate. But these models dramatically fail basic verification tests. Nowhere do they admit to these well-known failures. Instead, we are led to believe that their climate models are close to perfection.

This document is structured around a “fact-check,” where we quote a number of the government’s key claims in the NCA and show each to be invalid. The first three claims involve their three crucial scientific arguments (Three Lines of Evidence or 3 LoE), which, if valid, would satisfy a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for making their case. But each is easily shown to be false; and because each is crucial, their entire theory collapses. That means that all of the overblown “Climate Disruption” evidence that they mention, whether true or not, cannot be tied back to man’s burning of fossil fuels. Hence, efforts to reduce or eliminate Extreme Weather by reducing the burning of fossil fuels are completely nonsensical.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by i'va biggen

[SIZE="3"]Will you ... please read the original statement, quit taking out of context and fuck off. /SIZE]

Fixed it for you ..... Now you are behaving like "BigTits" .... not good.

Let me read it for you slowly .. what you wrote ....


"the ice melt is resulting in the land under them to rise."

"the ... ice ... melt .... is .....RESULTING ....

..in.... the.......... land ............under.......... them ....

.....TO RISE.."

In other words what you said is the ice is melting and that is causing the land beneath the ice to rise .... your spurious point to be that global warming is causing .... the continent to "rise"!

But scientifically the measurements show the LAND IS RISING at a rate 10 times faster than the ice melt would produce ... if it were producing anything at all ... which means ...

YOU'RE WRONG!!!

If your tricycle passed me on the highway traveling 10 times faster than it could be propelled with you pushing on the pedals .... then something ELSE besides pedal power was "pushing" or "pulling" your tricycle!!!! Or...

2 + 2 = 4

[JD Barleycorn]

So we know that there not a consensus among scientists after all. Some disagree and they are willing to stand up and be recognized as not running with the herd and playing it safe. They are the brave ones.
Science is not about consensus, it is about empirical data and proof. Unfortunately for the "alarmists" the proof is not there and the evidence keeps getting refuted. This has become about public relations and browbeating the opposition into submission.

You know that at one time all learned men KNEW that the universe revolved around the earth.
It was the consensus of the elites that the earth had a diameter of only 5,000 miles (it's really 8,000)
At one time doctors would tell you that diseases were caused by bad humors.
Medical professionals knew that if you went faster than 60 mph that you would have a stroke.
It was impossible for men to fly, for men to go to the moon, and to build the Panama Canal. We all knew that until it was proven wrong.
It was not too long ago that they thought there was "white" blood and "black" blood and they couldn't be mixed.
I put the alarmists in with the same crowd as the Y2Kers. Remember them? They knew the world going to come to a grinding halt on midnight of the first day of 2000.
That was a consensus point of view.
They were wrong.

[i'va biggen]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

Fixed it for you ..... Now you are behaving like "BigTits" .... not good.

Let me read it for you slowly .. what you wrote ....


"the ice melt is resulting in the land under them to rise."

"the ... ice ... melt .... is .....RESULTING ....

..in.... the.......... land ............under.......... them ....

.....TO RISE.."

In other words what you said is the ice is melting and that is causing the land beneath the ice to rise .... your spurious point to be that global warming is causing .... the continent to "rise"!

But scientifically the measurements show the LAND IS RISING at a rate 10 times faster than the ice melt would produce ... if it were producing anything at all ... which means ...

YOU'RE WRONG!!!

If your tricycle passed me on the highway traveling 10 times faster than it could be propelled with you pushing on the pedals .... then something ELSE besides pedal power was "pushing" or "pulling" your tricycle!!!! Or...

2 + 2 = 4

Shame you aren't as clever as you think you are.
I will ask a simple question it is a yes or no answer.
Is the land rising?

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by i'va biggen

Shame you aren't as clever as you think you are.
I will ask a simple question it is a yes or no answer.
Is the land rising?

Where?

NASA says "no" ... I'll go with NASA.

Oh, BTW, being able to add 2 + 2 and come up with 4, is not "clever"!

But like I said ... your "repeat after me" education is failing you.

May be pictures will help ...



Then try this ...

______________________________ _________________________

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
______________________________ _________________________


Now, see this ICE floating on top of the water?


Is the water holding the ice up .... or is the ice holding the water down?

[Jewish Lawyer]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

So we know that there not a consensus among scientists after all. Some disagree and they are willing to stand up and be recognized as not running with the herd and playing it safe. They are the brave ones.
Science is not about consensus, it is about empirical data and proof. Unfortunately for the "alarmists" the proof is not there and the evidence keeps getting refuted. This has become about public relations and browbeating the opposition into submission.

You know that at one time all learned men KNEW that the universe revolved around the earth.
It was the consensus of the elites that the earth had a diameter of only 5,000 miles (it's really 8,000)
At one time doctors would tell you that diseases were caused by bad humors.
Medical professionals knew that if you went faster than 60 mph that you would have a stroke.
It was impossible for men to fly, for men to go to the moon, and to build the Panama Canal. We all knew that until it was proven wrong.
It was not too long ago that they thought there was "white" blood and "black" blood and they couldn't be mixed.
I put the alarmists in with the same crowd as the Y2Kers. Remember them? They knew the world going to come to a grinding halt on midnight of the first day of 2000.
That was a consensus point of view.
They were wrong.

Some of the y2k consultants (alarmists) claim they prevented a massive disaster. I didn't do anything to any of my computers back then, and they are still working!! I offered to let people out of leases who demanded I update my building control systems - none did. I did nothing to any of my buildings and all the systems kept on working. Some of the people are still paying rent to the new owners.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by Jewish Lawyer

Some of the y2k consultants (alarmists) claim they prevented a massive disaster.

If I recall correctly, some folks thought that Columbus fell off the edge until he returned, and then it was merely a "hoax" he perpetrated on them.

The real issue on "global warming" is not do the temps change, but what causes the changes. So in a million or so years, another disaster can be prevented, unless we pull the trigger sooner and go ahead and glass over the whole friggin place, including the "line in the sand" that some knucklehead crossed!

I'll try to avoid unnecessary trips in my motor vehicles, and quit burning so much electricity whining on the internet about "global warming" ......

............. that is making everything colder.

[i'va biggen]

[QUOTE=LexusLover;1055342858]Where? It was a yes or no ass hat not where. Where do you think we have been discussing?

NASA says "no" ... I'll go with NASA.

Oh, BTW, being able to add 2 + 2 and come up with 4, is not "clever"!

But like I said ... your "repeat after me" education is failing you.

May be pictures will help ..




You are a simple ass hat so your childish pics will be assistance to you.

How come NASA is moving their facilities back from the water as rising sea water will soon cover some of their buildings and launch pads?


If there is a article that states that GPS instrumentation shows almost a 60 inch rise in the land in the last decade and yours says another thing then there are two theory's and probably neither is 100% correct.

This was not my theory nor did I espouse it so fuck off as I said you are not as smart as you think you are, and you have failed to impress me.

By the way I donated $1.00 in your name to the flat earth society so you are now a honorary flat head.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by i'va biggen

Said nothing worthwhile to quote

May be pictures won't help .. after all.

Originally Posted by i'va biggen

How come NASA is moving their facilities back from the water as rising sea water will soon cover some of their buildings and launch pads?

I thought the melting ice was resulting in land lifting (according to you)?

You might want to alert NASA about the wasted tax dollars, and let them know your theory about "lifting lands" from "ice melting"!!!!!

And speaking of "flat head" ....

.. the same folks you stated as reporting the GPS bullshit had in their article ...

what I quoted ... the same scientists!!!! You just failed to include it !!!!

So, ..
..does the iceberg hold the water down or does the water hold up the iceberg?

You're not so clever after all, are you? Dumbshit.

[Old-T]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

..does the iceberg hold the water down or does the water hold up the iceberg?

Sir Isaac says both.

[i'va biggen]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

May be pictures won't help .. after all.



I thought the melting ice was resulting in land lifting (according to you)?

You might want to alert NASA about the wasted tax dollars, and let them know your theory about "lifting lands" from "ice melting"!!!!!

And speaking of "flat head" ....

.. the same folks you stated as reporting the GPS bullshit had in their article ...

what I quoted ... the same scientists!!!! You just failed to include it !!!!

So, ..
..does the iceberg hold the water down or does the water hold up the iceberg?

You're not so clever after all, are you? Dumbshit.

Otherwise you have been arguing with yourself...fucking brilliant.

[Mr MojoRisin]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

Where?

NASA says "no" ... I'll go with NASA.

Oh, BTW, being able to add 2 + 2 and come up with 4, is not "clever"!

But like I said ... your "repeat after me" education is failing you.

May be pictures will help ...



Then try this ...

______________________________ _________________________

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
______________________________ _________________________


Now, see this ICE floating on top of the water?


Is the water holding the ice up .... or is the ice holding the water down?

Do a little experiment. Take two deep bowls fill them both with very cold water. In one of the bowls dissolve about two tablespoons of salt, now drop an egg in each of the bowls. Notice how the eggs float. Which egg floats the highest, the egg in the fresh water or the egg in the bowl with saltwater? The egg can represent an iceberg. The egg in the saltwater will float higher than it will in fresh water because saltwater is denser than fresh water. So in the picture of the iceberg, it's the seawater holding it in suspension on the surface. But keep in mind that about two thirds of the iceberg are still under the surface of the ocean.

Jim

[zerodahero]

Global warming? I thought the new term was "climate change".

[IIFFOFRDB]

Originally Posted by zerodahero

Global warming? I thought the new term was "climate change".

That's old school... the new term is "Killing the Middle Class".