Posted on 05/15/2007 3:11:17 PM PDT by Islander7
This completely completely misses the point (and which is why I thought somebody would flame me). You argued that the socialists and the liberals who support the IPCC believe that Antarctica was going to have significant melting while their published work says the opposite. Your post screams of fanaticism.
I don’t mind debating issues but you do realize that this is conservative site and you are using the IPCC as a source? How does your post advance conservatism?
As I said, you missed the point. But even if I was using the IPCC as a source, why would that be wrong? Is it wrong to cite Immanuel Kant when you are arguing in support of John Stuart Mill? If you want to debate something, you have to attack the premises of your opponent. If you just attack their conclusions, you are being fanatical.
I understand that but that’s not what the article says (at least not clearly, IMHO)
I reread the article again and I don’t get any thing new. It said that the snow melted then refroze into a layer. Didn’t mention going into the ocean.
By layer I assume(too much?) that it melted in place as a big puddle and simpley frozen in place and thus measured as such from satellite.
That is what this global warming swindle is about , increasing government power and advancing the socialist agenda. Socialism doesn't work . Capitalism does work and is what is advancing technology at a tremendous rate.
You using the IPCC as a source is wrong because the IPCC is part of the UN. That shows that they are socialists and untrustworthy. No conservative that has seen what the UN has done would ever believe anything coming from that institution. Why would you believe anything coming form the UN? Don’t you see that these people and Democrats want to take your private property and your freedom? Read about Cambodia ‘s killing fields or the USSR’s bread lines ( that’s what socialism brings) . Global warming is just another code word for big government or socialism.
Yes I have seen liberals saying that the polar ice caps will melt soon. That was a lie and what the IPCC says is lies. So who cares what the IPCC says or if it contradicts what other liberals have said? They are all liberal/socialist lies .Global warming is a lie and the link I showed proved that. Antarctica cooled for the last 30 years which debunks Global warming. Antarctica cooled for the last 30 years
CHURCHVILLE, VA - In direct contradiction to the global warming theory, a forthcoming study in the prestigious journal Nature says the Antarctic has been cooling for the past 30 years. According to the new Nature paper on Antarctic cooling, “Climate models generally predict amplified warming in the Polar Regions, as observed in Antarctica’s peninsula region over the second half of the 20th century.” However, the researchers found “Antarctic meteorological data demonstrates a new cooling on the Antarctic continent between 1966 and 2000, particularly during summer and autumn.” The researchers say that the McMurdo Dry Valleys, for example, have cooled about 0.7 degrees Celsius per decade during this period. The authors conclude, “Continental Antarctic cooling, especially the seasonality of cooling, poses challenges to models of climate and ecosystem change.” Another new study, in the journal Science, says the Antarctic ice sheet is thickening, rather than thinning as had been previously claimed. Some researcher had even predicted that the Antarctic ice sheet would be completely gone in 4000 years, triggering a major sea level rise.
I hate to break it to you, but whether or not manmade climate change is real or not does not depend on what you or I want. It doesn't depend upon socialism or capitalism any more than gravity would.
You need to get to a logic 101 class. You can object to premises of an argument but not the conclusion. This is why you must cite any arguments you are debating. If you don't cite the IPCC, you could never attack its premises.
Citing socialism is not a valid objection (again) to the conclusion of global warming. If you want to attack the premises you need to review the IPCC and understand why they are making their argument. For example, you could say that you object to their quantification of the planetary heat balance and then cite your reasons. Your repeated citing of socialism against the global warming argument is becoming increasingly bizarre and fanatical.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.