Greenland: The New Global Warming Scam

Okay, now how is the mainstream media going to be able to get away with this one? Did an Editor even bother to look up why it's known as Greenland? Wouldn't that make at least some sense?

An island made by global warming
By Michael McCarthy, Environmental Editor
Published: 24 April 2007

The map of Greenland will have to be redrawn. A new island has appeared off its coast, suddenly separated from the mainland by the melting of Greenland's enormous ice sheet, a development that is being seen as the most alarming sign of global warming.

Several miles long, the island was once thought to be the tip of a peninsula halfway up Greenland's remote east coast but a glacier joining it to the mainland has melted away completely, leaving it surrounded by sea.

Greenland:

c. 980: The fjords of the southern part of the island were lush and had a warmer climate at that time, possibly due to what was called the Medieval Warm Period.

After almost five hundred years, the Scandinavian settlements simply vanished, possibly due to famine during the fifteenth century in the Little Ice Age, when climatic conditions deteriorated, and contact with Europe was lost. Bones from this late period were found to be in a condition consistent with malnutrition.

So this island has most likely come and gone before, hundreds of years before man invented electricity or the internal combustion engine, but, well, this time it's different, it's proof positive that man is the cause of Global Warming?

Give me a break. The real wonder here is how the journalist writing that article can get away with calling himself a professional, let alone the:

By Michael McCarthy, Environmental Editor

Unless, of course his profession is simply pimping Global Warming.

Comments

[templar knight]

Wow, Dan, think of all that new land that will be opening up for development in Greenland. Does anyone know how one can buy land in Greenland? I'm thinking it might be a great investment, just hope I can beat AlGore and Sheryl Crow to it.

[ET]

algore's company holds the lottery for Greenland real estate in addition to cargon offsets.

[ET]

*carbon* ;)

[evelyn]

Cargon, carbon...do you really think algore gives a shit? Start a "global warming" based movement against cargon at Moveon and you'll have $12,000 in the bank in 11 minutes! STOP THE US CARGON! Has a certain ring to it..don't tell lol, legl or zifknob or they'll get all worked up about the CARGON crisis...

[seekeronos]

Watch for the Liberals to play their usual game of whitewash and demand that Greenland be referred to by its politically correct Native (American? It actually belongs to Denmark...) name of "Kalaallit Nunaat".

I mean after all, we wouldn't want to have anyone thinking that Greenland might have actually been green at some time. Can't even suggest that with a "Kalaallit Nunaat".

Side thought: Since Denmark has been selected by the Caliphate for the divine retribution of the brave Musselmen Mujhadeen (et. al) Revolution...

... maybe we can kill two birds with one stone by deporting our surplus population of enemy aliens and Islamist seditionists to Greenland? It belongs to Denmark, and it would become a Euro problem once again. Or the next ice age will kick in and bury the problem outright.

[Buzzy]

I keep wondering if AlGore and his little band of carbon offset scammers and useful idiots lived at the end of the Ice Age, would they decry climate change?

Would they gnash their teeth at the demise of the Woolly Mammoth and Sabre Toothed Tiger and cry at the retreat of the glaciers covering much of North America.

Just how much different is that from where we are now, at the end of the "little ice age" watching Greenland become Green once again as it historically was.

I'm already hearing a collective groan from the people on the topic of Global Warming. It's growing louder as they watch AlGore jet around and Sheryl Crow with her traveling circus using more fuel than a small city while preaching the religion of carbon offsets. I give this scam a year at most and then AlGore will be dismissed forever, a scammy footnote in history.

[seekeronos]

On Global Warming and Polar Bear INCREASES,from the ol' repository of knowledge called wikipedia:

"Future prospects

In recent years, circumpolar cultural and political groups like the Inuit Circumpolar Conference have come together to promote the Inuit and other northern people and to fight against ecological problems, such as global warming, which disproportionately affects the Inuit population. Global warming may cause Arctic mammal populations to decline. However, a recent survey by Mitch Taylor of the Davis strait country shows that, contrary to to the dire predictions, the polar bear population has increased. It confirms the reports from Inuit hunters of a big increase in sightings."

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inuit#Future_prospects

[gil]

Answer to Rhiel.

My friend the Global Warming argument has been won .... Your side lost. Maibe you are too slow to understand it, or delusional but please my friend you are sounding rather silly.

Maibe you can champion other causes like... The earth is flat or something.

[Dan Riehl]

the Global Warming argument has been won

LOL Yeah, what was the last congressional vote total on Kyoto? It's a good thing Libs think they win things based on the PR and not actions, otherwise they might accomplish something, like de-funding the war. Well, they said they did it, they just lacked the votes. KInd of like the last two presidential elections, too. SOSDD

[gil]

Buzzy.

You are like the mental midgets that the smaller they get the loudest they screem.

Most be not to be steped on by history.

[templar knight]

"Most be not to be steped on by history."

Huh? Must be liberal pig latin for we're going to do you in.

[jay k.]

this is another strawman like all the other strawmen that so-called conservatives use to bolster their baseless idealogical positions. what the reporter wrote is that the disappearance of the ice sheet is seen as an alarming sign of global warming. he didn't say "...it's proof positive that man is the cause of Global Warming..." YOU SAID THAT. global warming and cooling happens, as the disappearing/re-appearing island shows. the concern of 99% of the peer-reviewed science on this issue is that man is rapidly accelerating normal warming cycles...at a truly alarming rate...and by extension the impacts of that warming. i can see you in ancient times, argueing that galeleo belonged in jail because the universe does revolve around the earth, which of course is flat...and posing strawman arguments to prove it.

[Robert]

You guys still in the last throes of global warming denial?

So, what's the downside of trying to do something to combat global warming? Is it the leaps and bounds in innovation that will surely follow?

If ignorance is bliss, the Right (other than the ones slowly coming around to reality) must think life is Eden.

[winston delgado]

Wow! Another pajama-wearing right wing mouthbreather shoots off his mouth about something he doesn't understand! Just what the world needs-more hot air! Future generations think you're an @$$hole, Riehl.

[biodieselbusdriver]

How the hell did this new island appear if Greenland's ice is melting raising the seas? Shouldn't it be the other way around? I don't get it, where's AlGore to explain this.

[Phoenix]

"...by deporting our surplus population of enemy aliens and Islamist seditionists to Greenland? "

Seek,

You're not wrong often, but in this case, I think sending Reid and Pelosi would be better. The rest will then take care of itself. :)

Robert,

"Is it the leaps and bounds in innovation that will surely follow?"

Guess what? Those leaps and bounds in innovation are in full swing - as is typical of a free nation of capital-hungry entreprenuers. Check it out - you would be amazed at how America is once again leading the way. Oh... it might take some searching because for sure, watching the MSM for information on the steady progress to fix the problems of pollution, et.al., won't be found there.

[madmatt]

"So this island has most likely come and gone before"

I love your idea of a "Fact"...no proof or anything just a succint "most likely".

It is "most likely" that your head is up your ass or has been prior to this date!

[ME]

"Did an Editor even bother to look up why it's known as Greenland?"

Well, we can be sure that you never did!

Greenland was named for marketing purposes by Erik the Red, not because it was green at the time. Though there is evidence that it's name was changed by Eric from it's original name, "Ground-land".

Basic history. Drop the revisionist BS, Riehl, you look silly.

[Robert]

Phoenix,

Better, faster, more with Government support.

See "the internet" for proof.

If that last line has you confused, think about which company started the internet.

[jt]

You guys should totally invest in ocean front property. The coast is a beautiful place to live. Make sure you move there soon though. Try not to wear anything you can't get wet. Morons.

[Staffan]

Satellite data for the years 1992 - 2003 show a net ice growth in Greenland of 6.4 cm/year in the interior areas above 1500m, or +60 cm for the 11 year period. Below 1500m, the ice is thinning at a rate of 2.0 cm/year.
Source: Johannessen, O. M, K. S. Khvorostovsky, M. W. Miles and L. P. Bobylev (2005): Recent ice sheet growth in the interior of Greenland. October 20, 2005 issue of Science Express

Nansen Environmental and Remote Sensing Center, Norway:
https://intra.nersc.no/newspub/preview.php?display=moreinfo&news_id=151

http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/articles/V8/N44/C1.jsp

[templar knight]

Hell, I'd love to invest in some coastal property, moron, but the price is so high I can't afford it. Apparently property is not subject to a global warming sale yet. I guess I will have to wait a week or two longer, according to little jerks like you, jt.

[Dusty]

Isn't this the same island that the NYT reported on 16 January?

I wondered why they made this weird statement "As the satellite pictures and the main photo which we publish today make clear, ..." in the middle of the story, pictures which, by the way, aren't published with the story and I can't find any link to them on the page.

It seems to me, now, that it's there to give the story the facade of breaking news and avoid the suggestion that if you stick with the Independent you'll never be, what, 3 months or more behind in the news. Maybe in another three month's time they'll have someone put up the map showing the area that the NYT put out on 16 January.

Change that to: Michael McCarthy, Environmental Historian

[trrll]

"So this island has most likely come and gone before, hundreds of years before man invented electricity or the internal combustion engine, but, well, this time it's different, it's proof positive that man is the cause of Global Warming?"

Except that you present no evidence whatsoever that this island has "come and gone" before (the fact that Greenland was said to have gone through a warm period does not prove that it was as warm as today). And this single observation is not being offered as "proof positive" of anything, but as yet one more addition to a long, long list of evidence that has led to the current scientific consensus that the climate is warming as a result of human activity.

[Crimso]

"current scientific consensus"

As an actual scientist, this term offends me. Perhaps you can point me to the actual peer-reviewed evidence demonstrating "that the climate is warming as a result of human activity." Don't bother. It doesn't exist, as you have claimed proof of an untestable hypothesis.

[James]

Just in case some are still confused. The land has always been there, but cartographers though it was the tip of a larger peninsula. Turns out the tip of the peninsula was connected not by land but by ice. As the ice receded the unconnected land was properly reclassified as an island. That’s all.

The global warming debate is virtually done in the scientific community, but as we can see here the debate is not yet completed in non-scientific arenas. The real debate is what is the most effective policy path from here and can be engaged by honest, well-intentioned people, without name-calling on each side. Some form of carbon emission control does seem reasonable. (Dykes around every major coastal city hardly seem practical.)

[Crimso]

"Some form of carbon emission control does seem reasonable."

There is absolutely no evidence that humans cause GW. None. Nada. Zippo. Zilch. I've looked and can't find it. Correlations do not remotely demonstrate causality. Untestable hypothesis. Not science. Belief, yes, but not science. Is it at all possible that humans cause GW? Sure. Just as possible it is caused by Russian weather control satellites, or the aliens who have been abducting humans. What are we gonna do about those aliens? We need planetary defense bases (more reasonable than wiping your ass with a single square of toilet paper, ain't it? Even twits like Rosie understand that).

[wardmd]

jay k.,

It is not the AGW "deniers" that say that MAN is the cause of Global Warming - it is the lunatic lefties (AlGore, Laurie David, Sheryl Crow, et. al.) who INSIST that man MUST be THE cause of Global Warming.

It is you lunatic Lefties who INSIST that "concensus" is sufficient "evidence" to PROVE your beliefs (like that the Earth was FLAT was "concensus")...

WE, who have not (yet) jumped onto the AGW bandwagon are still awaiting the scientific FACT (not speculation, not "concensus", but FACTS - hard, verifiable FACTS)...

Greenland's Ice Sheet (in total) is NOT melting - it is, in FACT, INCREASING in mass... I don't need "concensus" to make this statement, I have FACTS to back it up: "Spatially averaged over the bulk of the ice sheet, the net result ... was a mean increase of 5.4 ± 0.2 cm/year, "or ~60 cm over 11 years, or ~54 cm when corrected for isostatic uplift." (http://www.friendsofscience.org/documents/March29.pdf).

Even you STUPID LIBERALS (who routinely call a reduction in the RATE of GROWTH in funding of a government program as a "cut" in funding) should be able to understand that a "mean increase" means that the ice is getting BIGGER, not SMALLER.

STOP relying on "computer models" and "simulations" to GUESS what might occur sometime in the future, and start basing your comments on FACTS...

Robert,

There's ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WRONG with YOU (and anyone who agrees with you) doing WHATEVER YOU WANT "to do something to combat global warming", just DON'T FORCE ME to go along with YOUR idea of "something"...

YOU go ahead and use compact florescent bulbs (no one is going to stop you), but I don't want them (for ME). YOU go ahead and drive you prius (or ride your bike, or walk) - no one is going to stop you, but I like my Mercedes, thank you (my wife likes hers, and my daughter likes hers). YOU go ahead and use ONE square of toilet paper when YOU take a dump, but I will continue to use as much as it takes to PROPERLY clean my ass (AND I hope eveyone who works in the restaurants I frequent uses more than ONE square AND uses more than one gallon of water to wash their hands PROPERLY afterwards, too).

But I'm sure Sheryl Crow knows FAR more than do scientists... I'm SURE she knows that there's something WRONG with Los Angeles' plan to use OUR sewage sludge (INCLUDING toilet paper) to generate electricity for about 3,000 homes while (at the SAME time) eliminating the CO2 output of about 3,200 cars (http://www.sciencedaily.com/upi/index.php?feed=Science&article=UPI-1-20070406-13292300-bc-us-sludge.xml).

Damn, I thought this was a GOOD idea, but I guess Sheryl Crow knows best...

[Dusty]

Well, I finally found some maps of the island in question.

It's nice that this guy gets to name the island whatever he wants to, I suppose, but to say he discovered it was an island seems a stretch. He might have been the first to see it surrounded by water, but my guess is 50% of the idiots who looked at a map in the last 20 years would have said "Hey, there's an ice bridge to that island."

As for this being a harbinger of anthropologically induced global warming, nah. If you want, you can read about surging and pulsing glaciers in this Northern East Greenland on pdf pg 91 here:

http://pubs.usgs.gov/prof/p1386c/

If you want to see the island and their meaning of glacier and glacial retreat, open the pdf map, prepared in 1995, just below the report.

There's a topographic map of Greenland from Demmark where you can zoom in quite well, here:

http://arcims.mim.dk/website/GEUS/Greenland/Geo%5FNeg/viewer.htm

Zoom toward the top right corner of the first full polygon in the bottom right corner of the initial viewing area. Look for the three fingered island close to shore; fingers point north ( or Up, for you north challenged folks.)

I did like the report. I didn't know some of those glaciers in that area advanced by up to 7 km in the 1960's. I guess I missed the IPCC notation that global warming started in the 70's, when all of a sudden there were people. (/sarcasm)

[wardmd]

You know, I DO think that the retreat of ice sheets is a BAD thing...

I firmly support doing EVERYTHING WE CAN to ensure that ALL of Canada (and a LOT of northern portion of the Continental United States) is once again is COVERED in ice.

I mean, really, why stop at Greenland, and the Arctic?

Hell, since none of these Global Warming Chicken-Littles can say what they think the Earth's temperature SHOULD BE (like it's supposed to be "stable" and constant), or exactly how much CO2 we're SUPPOSED to have in the atmosphere, or exactly how many people the Earth is (allegedly) supposed to be able to handle, then I think it's perfectly FAIR and REASONABLE to suggest that they way it was back then...

Or, are we to believe that the "correct" temperature and ice sheet masses were the moment when AlGore and "One Square" Crow were born? Not before, not NOW, not in the future...

[Colin]

Crimso said:
"There is absolutely no evidence that humans cause GW. None. Nada. Zippo. Zilch. I've looked and can't find it."

Crimso, you took a look around and couldn't find any evidence of global warming. That's all I need to hear! What a relief.

Perhaps you can help explain why the IPCC said this in their Feb 7, 2007 report on global warming:
"Most of the observed increases in globally averaged temperature since the mid-20th century is very likely [> 90%] due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations."

According to the IPCC, there is a greater than 90% chance that human activity has caused most of the recent warming. The IPCC has studied the issue for almost 20 years; I'd be surprised if Riehl spent 20 minutes laying this turd of a post.

If you're interested in what real scientists have to say about global warming and the IPCC report, take a look here:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/02/the-ipcc-fourth-assessment-summary-for-policy-makers/

[Dusty]

I don't know, Colin, maybe I have a defective Acrobat Reader, but I searched the report you cite and can't find that quote anywhere in it.

Now at Real Climate there was something very similar to that, but again it is not a quote and what is similar at Real Climates says something entirely different. There, they write "the report concludes that human influences on climate are 'very likely' (> 90% chance) already detectable in observational record; increased from 'likely' (> 66% chance) in the TAR."

A 90% chance it is already detectable is much different than a 90% chance it was caused by. If they are speaking of chances it is detectable, they aren't even sure it is detectable yet, though most, including you, are running around like chicken littles typing 'humans are causing it'.

And you wonder why many are not impressed with either your warning or their report.

[Derek Murphy]

History and science: Your two worst topics.

The issue isn't whether there have been warming periods before. There have. The issue is whether this one is caused by us, or accelerated by us, and what the impact will be on the civilization we've built and the environment around it.

Plus which, you've - naturally - mangled the facts of the Greenland issue. But, you're conservative, so facts take a backseat to partisan hackery.

Much of this information is concealed in books. Put down the Bible and read one or two.

And answer this question, which divides the rational from the irrational: Do you believe in evolution? There's only one right response.

[Raging_Dave]

Ah, let's correct your little blurb there, shall we?

"Do you believe in the THEORY OF evolution"? It's still a theory, Derek. Sorry to break up your little snarkfest. However, your added statement of "There's only one right response" proves to me that you are completely unaware of what a theory is, or more importantly why evolution is still a theory.

Typical. Just about what I would expect from someone pushing the "Mankind is causing Global Warming" bullshit. Yes, let's all ignore the causes of the heating and cooling of the Earth in order to push some politically based crap. What a grand idea.

[Derek Murphy]

Raging Dave, please excuse any spelling errors, if you're capable of detecting them, because I'm still wiping away tears of laughter at the notion of you telling me or anyone else the true definition of "theory," which in science can refer to established truth as well as unproven conjecture.

You know, unproven conjecture, like God, the Ark, the Flood? As opposed to observable reality, which the evolutionary process surely is.

As long as boneheads like you are allowed to chatter uncorrected, it will be possible for someone, somewhere, to debate the facts of physics, geology, geography, astronomy, and all the other sciences that must also be thrown out if evolution is discarded.

The Bible's wrong. Evolution is right. And your beliefs are equivalent to those of the Flat Earth Society. Period.

As I said, the response to my question, which Riehl dodged, separates the rational from the irrational. We know which side of the line you fall on, don't we, Dave?

[Robert]

wardmd at 7:46,

Got it.
Same with the war in Iraq.
If you want to use your hard-earned money to tilt at windmills, go right ahead. Just don't use my hard-earned tax dollars for so,mething so futile.
Same with fighting the war. If you think it'll do you some good, go put your life on the line.
But don't expect us "thinkers" to go die for your delusions.

Is this starting to show how moronic you sound in your 7:46 post?

[Colin]

Dusty,

You're right, that is not the exact quote from the PDF. (I was quoting from another site.)

Here is what the IPCC PDF says:
"Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very
likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations. This is an
advance since the TAR’s conclusion that “most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely
to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations”. Discernible human influences now
extend to other aspects of climate, including ocean warming, continental-average temperatures,
temperature extremes and wind patterns (see Figure SPM-4 and Table SPM-2)."

To me that statement is quite clear, and it says nothing about being 'detectable'.

I understand that wingers are "not impressed" with the IPCC report (or any fact that interferes with their cherished fantasies), but I disagree that "many" feel this way. This site summarizes some recent polling of American's opinions on global warming and what should be done about it:
http://www.americans-world.org/digest/global_issues/global_warming/gw1.cfm

"A very strong majority of the US public embraces the idea that global warming is a real and serious problem even though only a slight majority perceives that there is a consensus in the scientific community on this question."

[Crimso]

Colin, do you actually do science? Have you published in a peer-reviewed journal? If so, can you let me know which one, please? I've got a ton of things I consider "very likely," but for which I have no direct evidence (i.e., an actual experiment demonstrating cause and effect), and I'd dearly love to publish them. Sadly, the journals I've published in don't typically allow such. I have to actually back up my claims with, you know, evidence. The problem here is that people actually believe that science is done by consensus. This is not to say that any group of scientists cannot achieve a consensus about any subject at all. But such a consensus will merely be an opinion, and not a scientifically demonstrated fact. You may choose to believe them, and insist that we enact whatever measures you believe will alleviate the problem, but please don't tolerate people claiming AGW is a scientific fact. It is demonstrably not. And always, always, always remember: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, so you may yet be correct.

[Crimso]

"Same with fighting the war. If you think it'll do you some good, go put your life on the line."

It is shocking how often people use the clear logical fallacy of the chickenhawk argument (argumentum ad hominem) and think that they appear clever by doing so.

[KC]

"Colin, do you actually do science? Have you published in a peer-reviewed journal? If so, can you let me know which one, please?"

Just what does that have to do with the fact that there IS plenty of material published in peer reviewed journals etc. that does correlate the recent trends in global warming with human activity? And that there ISN'T for AWG?

[KC]

""Same with fighting the war. If you think it'll do you some good, go put your life on the line."

It is shocking how often people use the clear logical fallacy of the chickenhawk argument (argumentum ad hominem) and think that they appear clever by doing so."

So you must be on Al Gore's side in the flap with regards to not immediately adopting the practices he's preaching at home.

Right?

[KC]

"The problem here is that people actually believe that science is done by consensus."

Like the Intelligent Designers?

BTW - I am not sure that the chickenhawk argument fits the classic ad hominem mold.

Person A makes claim X
There is something objectionable about Person A
Therefore claim X is false

[Colin]

Crimso,

No, I don't "do science". (I assume you are asking if I am a scientist, and at the same time, implying that you are one.)

You said, "There is absolutely no evidence that humans cause GW. None. Nada. Zippo. Zilch. I've looked and can't find it."

The IPCC said, based on nearly 20 years of study, that they believe there is a greater than 90% chance that human activity has caused most of the recent global warming.

I guess you're waiting for the Incontrovertible Study that proves "when humans do X it causes temperatures to rise by Y". Given the complexity of the Earth's climate, it seems very unlikely that anyone will ever produce such a study. Do you think it would be possible to do such a study in the future? I'm interested in your opinion as a scientist.

In the meantime, the IPCC spends a lot of time analyzing the studies that are currently possible. I'll say it one more time: their current consensus, based on available data, is that it's more than 90% likely that human activity caused most of the recent warming.

In my opinion, > 90% is close enough for governments to begin to act to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

[wardmd]

Colin,

Just how much Greenhouse Gas does the Government produce? If you're asking THEM to reduce Greenhouse Gases, then you must believe that THEY produce it.

There is, of course, NOTHING stopping YOU (and those like you who believe that "something must be done") to reduce YOUR emissions all you want...

BUT, you have NO RIGHT to DEMAND that EVERYONE participate in your Chicken-Little Global Warming crisis.

WHEN it is PROVEN (yes, scientifically - definitively) that CO2 (produced by MAN) is either THE cause of (or even that it is a "major contributor" to) AGW, THEN we'll talk about MANDATING reductions in these emissions...

Let us not forget, dear Sir, that GOVERNMENT (at the behest of Environmentalist Activists) MANDATED the installation of Catalytic Converters in our automobiles; AND that these MANDATED Catalytic Converters convert NON-Greenhouse Gas (Carbon Monoxide [CO]) into Greenhouse Gas (Carbon Dioxide [CO2]).

NOW you're asking this same government to MANDATE a reduction in this gas (WITHOUT PROOF that it REALLY is a contributor to Global Warming).

I'll say it again: Consensus is NOT scientific PROOF that a THEORY is FACT.

And YES, we ARE waiting for incontrovertible PROOF that "when humans do X, it causes temperatures to rise by Y" BEFORE we undertake DRACONIAN changes to our lifestyles and our economy.

WHAT, pray tell, is preventing YOU (and your lunatic Liberal comrades) from perfecting all manner of alternative energy sources and put the EVIL Oil Companies (aka Bush’s buddies) out of business (BEFORE they develop it, and sell it to you for an obscene profit)?

[GRG]

How did science ever become so politically charged? Now. being a political football means fools will believe once side or the other, and generally cut off their nose to spite their face, or go down with the sinking Titanic saying that it is unsinkable.

The state of the environment should be neither a liberal, nor a conservative issue. It should be a well thought out, deliberated, scientific issue. Science does not always lay out clear paths; however there should a reasoned discourse.

Looking at the responses here I can say with ultimate 100% confidence that this issue is now dominated by ideology, politics, and emotion. I cannot say that global warming is 100% certain. So I guess something is gained.

This fight between 'liberal' and 'conservative' ideology is pathetically flawed. What if Gerald Ford started studying climatology; what if he lectured on greenhouse gases. Then would neo-cons fight for the idea as much as they fight for other conservative ideas? Would the libs start arguing for SUVs? Is this now a fight of personality or ideation?

The entire fight disgusts anyone connected to science. First, to think that Congress can figure science out is horribly misguided. Congressmen can't even get square roots, not to mention analyze data.

Second, the entire framing of the issue as 'driving SUVs' or 'going to candles' is mindless. The 'experts' who argue against warming or greenhouse gases appear to be on the level of 'Dr Phil'.

People need to get serious and swallow ideology. Pick a solid expert with an ability to reason about the data. Sean Hannity doesn't cut it.

[Crimso]

As a final post on this issue, I will simply point out (again) that correlations do not prove causality, "90% likely" is not "proven scientifically," and that there are people out there (some of whom should probably know better) that are insisting that both of those statements are false. I am indeed a scientist (most definitely NOT a climatologist) and I teach science at a major university (and can rightly claim that Al Gore was a colleague of mine in that we were both on faculty there at the same time, although I can't recall having seen him around the science buildings). I know science when I see it, and I know faith when I see it. Claims that global warming is caused by humans and that it is a settled issue are faith, and not science. The post regarding the politicization of science was pertinent, but people should realize that this particular issue was largely politicized by politicians and activists, not scientists. Have fun continuing to gnaw on this issue (on both sides), but I'll not waste any more time trying to help lay people understand a little better about what science is and how it is done when so many clearly refuse to learn because they are so emotionally invested in one side or the other. No offense taken by any comments here, and hopefully no one else feels offense at my comments. And I haven't offered anything here out of condescension, but rather dismay.

[Jack Flackett]

Getting back to the original issue here, this post seems to be making two points.

The first is that since there are some records about Greenland being warm
some 1000 years ago, that must mean that there was far less of a glacial overburden then. Meaning that in the last 10 centuries, there must have been an accumulation of thousands of feet of ice for it to be melting again now. Ridiculous, of course, unless there was a recent ice age that didn't make the papers.

As for some editor "getting away with this one", what did he get away with except telling the story: a new island has been revealed by the melting of massive glaciers. Recent research as also shown that the original Greenlanders died off because they destroyed their ecosystem by burning all of what little wood there had been, and heavily grazing sheep that ravaged the hillsides that then eroded down onto the few areas suitable for agriculture. Or is that lesson too complicated for you?

Oh yeah... melting ice that is miles thick in spots will not be enough to raise the GLOBAL sea level a corresponding height. Jeez... where did you people go to school? And can you get your money back?

[Hard Right]

"According to the IPCC..."

You are a gullible moron.

GRG the phony military vet wonders who has politicized science? Well, from having been involved in the firearms debate for some time-the left. Except now it's expanded from there to other areas. BTW, questioning whether man is causing global warming and the possible effects of it, is hardly following a political ideology, dumbass. What next? Another quote from a computer scientist on an unrelated field as though he's an expert on it?

"which divides the rational from the irrational"

LMAO, you think you're rational! Too funny. All you've really done is shown you are a religion hating bigot. Belief in God and science are hardly exclusionary. However, I don't expect mental patients like yourself to understand that.

[seekeronos]

"You know, unproven conjecture, like God, the Ark, the Flood? As opposed to observable reality, which the evolutionary process surely is".

Ark = real. Several exploration teams have located the mountain it rests upon.

Flood = real, in particular, a very large (if not global) flood that submerged Asia minor.

Evolution = unproveable theory, with some supporting evidence. God is not limited to our feeble understanding for creating and bringing about the species that populate the earth.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"As long as boneheads like you are allowed to chatter uncorrected, it will be possible for someone, somewhere, to debate the facts of physics, geology, geography, astronomy, and all the other sciences that must also be thrown out if evolution is discarded".

Yes, you "atheists" or "people running from God" realize full well that most of your so-called knowledge would come down like a house of cards if certain key tenets were disproven.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Bible's wrong. Evolution is right. And your beliefs are equivalent to those of the Flat Earth Society. Period.

Flat Earth = empirically disproven; an oblate spheroidal model of the earth is irrefutable.

Evolution = unproveable theory; there is no solid proof that we evolved from chimpanzees or an immediately common ancestral creature with chimpanzees within 4~5 MYA- the interim skeletons for such an animal simply do not exist in the fossil record. The earliest Human-like (to include H. neanderthalensis and Cro-Magnon Man) skeletons suddenly appeared between 500kYA~1200kYA in the fossil record, which is much more consistently with scriptural accounts of Mankind being a special creation of God apart from the animals. If we only include H. sapiens, that time would only date to around 40kYA (40 millennia).

Even then, the dating methods are controversial, and subject to interpretation. Modern Man (Adam and Eve) may well not have created until about 10,000 years ago.

Science = Man's knowledge and framing and understanding of the natural universe around him.

God's Word = the origin and creative Power behind the universe man is a part of.

Faith = ...

"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. For by it the elders obtained a good report.

Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear." (Hebrews 11:1-3)

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Isaiah 55:8-9 "For thus saith the Lord"...

For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD.

For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Or the shorter version:

God = Right.

You = Wrong.

Yeah. It doesn't matter what you or I think (especially Derek). God is perfect and just and holy. We are wrong, we were sinners from the womb, deserving only hell. But thanks be to Christ who redeemed us from every lawless deed.

In the end, there is really only one very simple question that must be solved in each person's life... and here it is for you, Derek:

When you die, will you suffer eternal hellfire?

Or are you saved by the redeeming blood of Christ, purchased by Him unto God?

[wardmd]

Robert,

Sorry, I missed your Iraq War and your taxes snipe...

Let's see, oh yes the Constitution specifically articulates WAR (presumably they Founding Fathers EXPECTED the United States to undertake WAR [when necessary]).

They vested in Congress the authority to DECLARE WAR, and for the President (as Commander-in-chief) to EXECUTE (run) the war. Congress DID authorize the President "...to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to (1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq ..." (Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002).

This, AFTER, the United Nations Security Council passed (unanimously) Resolution 1441 (the 17th resolution demanding Saddam's Iraq to COMPLY with the terms of the CEASE-FIRE [some 12 YEAR earlier]).

To suggest that THIS use of YOUR tax dollars is WRONG, but that using MY tax dollars to do something that is IN NO WAY articulated in the Constitution as a power vested in Congress (in fact, it is not vested in ANY branch of the Federal Government) YOU are in favor of - well, that's just STUPID (typical, but STUPID)...

seekeronos,

WHAT in the world are YOU smoking?

The ARK REAL? What PROOF (other than the Bible's account)? Yes, many people have CLAIMED that they have located SOMETHING on SOME mountain, but it has NOT been PROVEN to be the wreckage of a ship, let alone THE ARK.

Hell, GOD is a THEORY (or, more precisely, a matter of FAITH)... NO ONE has (or could) PROVE that God exists (other than God himself/herself materializing AND performing all manner of miracles).

I hate to be the one to break the news to you, but the Bible is NOT a peer-reviewed scientific journal. It is NOT an historic textbook. Until its contents can be PROVEN, it is no more PROOF of anything IT SAYS than is AlGore's movie.

NOTE to Liberals: If the Bible is NOT a "factual document", why is it BANNED in schools? Why not ban ALL non-factual books? Only allow PROVEN facts to be taught in school!

Back to topic...

Jack Flackett,

Well said...

I've got another question for all you people worried about the potential devistation of rising sea levels...

WHERE did all the ICE come from? That's right, class, it came from SNOW FALL...

Now, where did the SNOW come from? Right again, from the WATER VAPOR (clouds) in the sky...

One Final Question... WHERE did the water vapor come from? WOW, you're so smart! That's right! It came from evaporation of the WATER covering the Earth's surface...

SO, here's the EXTRA CREDIT question... If the water vapor came from the oceans, and now, after becoming snow and ice, it's melting back into the sea, WHAT THE HELL is the problem? OBVIOUSLY the water STARTED OUT in the oceans, so WHY is it WRONG that it return back to it's origin?

You think, just MAYBE, that the NORMAL state is for the water to be in the ocean, and NOT covering the land?

Hey, I'm just asking questions here (oops, that's right, "the debate is OVER" isn't it?).