Glaciers on Mount Everest are shrinking

[Professor Buzzkill]

The cause does matter because they should not be retreating.

The change is NOT gradual.

The positives?!! like flooding, lack of clean drinking water, lack of irrigation water, extreme weather events, heat waves?

Just about the bolded part. A lot of people are saying there will be a massive rise in sea levels. Al Gore claimed there would be a rise of 20feet in 100 years, then brought a beachside multi-million dollar property with all the money he made by saying we would all die. This is the general trend within the alarmist industry

[Guest]

Just about the bolded part. A lot of people are saying there will be a massive rise in sea levels. Al Gore claimed there would be a rise of 20feet in 100 years, then brought a beachside multi-million dollar property with all the money he made by saying we would all die. This is the general trend within the alarmist industry

Not among he ones I know

Generalisations like that need a lot more supporting evidence to be taken seriously ,

Br Cornelius

[ninjadude]

Just about the bolded part. A lot of people are saying there will be a massive rise in sea levels. Al Gore claimed there would be a rise of 20feet in 100 years, then brought a beachside multi-million dollar property with all the money he made by saying we would all die. This is the general trend within the alarmist industry

1) there could be massive sea level rise. That's necessarily not alarmist. There is a reality. A sea level rise happening now.

2) IIRC he claimed there could be a 20ft sea level rise if we do nothing about climate change. Notice the wording of things.

3) He didn't tell people not to buy beach front property or that they should move. I fail to see what your problem with it is.

The more likely thing is that you want to make a big deal out of nothing to attempt to discredit the political will needed to deal with climate change.

Edited July 24, 2010 by ninjadude

[Guest]

The main problem I have with Al Gore is that fundamentally he is in the camp of business as usual, just done better and with less pollution. He presents no radical ideas and believes that market based solutions are enough to prevent climate change.

Fundamentally it is the infinite growth based markets which are the root cause of climate change. They are the problem and cannot be the main part of the solution. The situation is far to serious to simply shift the deckchairs on the the deck. We need a radical and far sighted change in how we do everything, and what it means to be a productive human. Al Gore offers nothing in this direction and as such is a bit of an irrelevance as far as I am concerned.

The fact that he is buying up property in places which are likely to be valuable real estate once sea levels rise is simply proof of what a good capitalist he really is. You should admire him for his business acumen.

Br Cornelius

[stevewinn]

1) there could be massive sea level rise. That's necessarily not alarmist. There is a reality. A sea level rise happening now.

2) IIRC he claimed there could be a 20ft sea level rise if we do nothing about climate change. Notice the wording of things.

3) He didn't tell people not to buy beach front property or that they should move. I fail to see what your problem with it is.

The more likely thing is that you want to make a big deal out of nothing to attempt to discredit the political will needed to deal with climate change.

This sea level rise, 20ft. is this from melting sea ice?

[Guest]

This sea level rise, 20ft. is this from melting sea ice?

Do you think we are stupid ?

Br Cornelius

[stevewinn]

Do you think we are stupid ?

Br Cornelius

You YES, others NO.

[Guest]

You YES, others NO.

Can I ask on what basis you make that assertion, otherwise its just an ungrounded insult which is not allowed.

Br Cornelius

[ExpandMyMind]

Since the averaged mean temperature has warmed over the last 100yrs for the planet as a whole - then it is accurate to describe it as Global Warming.

Since this causes a range of local climate effects it is accurate to describe the situation as Climate Change.

These statements are not contradictory, and the scientists have been using both terms in their appropriate context since the early days of research into recent man made climate shifts. I see no need to qualify my statement regarding climate change causing both glacial retreat and glacial expansion since it is the correct use of the term to descibe the local climate effects caused by Global Warming.

Br Cornelius

i think you're missing my point. i would have no problem with these changes being labeled 'global warming' or 'climate change' if they were merely describing what is happening - there is obviously no arguing this - but they are not being used in that context, instead, they are being used with the foreknowledge that the terms will be interpreted as 'the theory of man made global warming' 'the theory of man made climate change'.

the proper terms to use would be, 'warming of the globe' or 'changing of the climate'. both explain exactly what is happening without so obviously trying to promote the agenda that man is responsible for the changes.

that was my point.

[Guest]

i think you're missing my point. i would have no problem with these changes being labeled 'global warming' or 'climate change' if they were merely describing what is happening - there is obviously no arguing this - but they are not being used in that context, instead, they are being used with the foreknowledge that the terms will be interpreted as 'the theory of man made global warming' 'the theory of man made climate change'.

the proper terms to use would be, 'warming of the globe' or 'changing of the climate'. both explain exactly what is happening without so obviously trying to promote the agenda that man is responsible for the changes.

that was my point.

That is certainly not the tone of what you said;

i still chuckle at the fact they had to substitute global warming for climate change. suppose they needed something to combat all that nasty cold weather, messing up their grants. brrrr.

The conclusion I feel you were trying to draw was that the name changed to conceal certain facts.

In this context the use of the terms "Climate change" and"Global Warming" are indeed well understood to refer to AGW, and therefore in this context we all know what is been talked about. If the article wanted to suggest that this was natural variation it would have specifically pointed this out and hence modified the meaning of the terms, it did not so it meant AGW.

You seem to be looking for controversy where none is.

[ExpandMyMind]

well thanks for selectively quoting me in the post above so not to include the bold -

i think you meant to say 'due to the climate of the region changing' (it would have been more accurate). to attribute it to 'climate change' is completely different and would be quite an assumption.

i still chuckle at the fact they had to substitute global warming for climate change. suppose they needed something to combat all that nasty cold weather, messing up their grants. brrrr.

the bold, which quite clearly shows that you've fudged up, is basically what i've tried to explain to you in post #34. so it was definitely in keeping with the 'tone' of the discussion.

the 'chuckle' part was clearly the afterthought. did you honestly expect me not to notice that you excluded that part of my post when you quoted it? really? nice attempt to divert the topic away from the very valid point i made.

Edited July 28, 2010 by expandmymind

[Guest]

I am really finding it impossible to follow the semantic hoops you are jumping through, I made a quote of the bit that had meaning - the other seemed like blatant word play to me. Sorry if I took you up wrong.

Br Cornelius

[ExpandMyMind]

my whole point was to address 'blatant wordplay'.