Huge Chunk of Ice Breaks Off of Antarctica

[EricMM 0]

Talking about two saids implies a sort of equality that just doesn't exist I3k.

[Dobbs 3K 0]

Talking about two saids implies a sort of equality that just doesn't exist I3k.

 

I'm not sure what you mean by that.

[Sideburnious 0]

It's funny because I have a friend who doesn't believe in global warming because of a documentary he saw. If you try to argue points with him he just retorts with "Watch the documentary, then you'll understand". I wanna see if I'll get that reaction when I show him this.

 

 

[Firestarter 0]

Back in the land of the sane:

 

To put it in perspective: what actually broke off comprised just about 10% of the total area of that particular ice shelf - and less than half of a thousandth of a percent of the total area of all Antarctic ice shelves combined. If you add in mass it becomes even less significant by orders of magnitude, because ice compacts as you get closer to the pole. And by the way, anyone notice that we're in late spring now? Might that have something to do with it?

 

This is nonsense on stilts.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

- link

[St. Gabe 0]

So, I start to wonder, to this point, the arguments against global warming have largely been about sluffing off symptoms of global warming by claiming they are nothing to worry about. At what point will the symptoms become severe enough that people (read: conservatives) take them seriously?

 

It's a legit question, treat it as a hypothetical if you must. I'd really like to know what it will take

[SamoaRowe 0]

See, this is why modern day conservatism feels like a mental illness. There's this complete denial of the growing evidence of global warming and it's all based on this notion that it's some sort of "liberal hoax" to scare us into taking better care of the planet? This complete denial of evidence from the scientific community just because it doesn't gel with policital ideals? How the fuck did something like global warming get politicized like this!

 

Can't even treat it as a hypothetical... for fucking shame.

[At Home 0]

My parents' good friend is a physics professor at the local university. He came over to the house and did a pretty convincing presentation on how global warming isn't wrong, it's just not the issue. It's gonna happen, and it's a result of the sun, and the planet's cyclical heating and cooling systems. According to all his fancy science, climate change began 50 years before coal started being used. I can't give you specifics until I ask him to come over and give it again, but there it is.

[Red Baron 0]

I do believe that governments should do something to help the environment, cut back on emissions, research and develop new and greener ideas for the world, anything, but ignoring it.

[Jingus 0]

At what point will the symptoms become severe enough that people (read: conservatives) take them seriously?

 

It's a legit question, treat it as a hypothetical if you must. I'd really like to know what it will take

I'm not really a conservative, but I'm not a global warming disciple. So to make me believe it and care about it, you'd have to prove all of the following things, with hard factual evidence, beyond a shadow of a doubt:

 

1. The planet really is getting hotter.

 

2. The increase in heat will negatively affect humanity.

 

3. It's getting hotter fast enough that significant effects will show up within, oh, the next century.

 

4. Humans are causing this and it's not a natural phenomenon.

 

5. There's actually anything we can really do to stop it.

 

 

If you could provide undeniable numerical data to prove every one of those, then I'd care about global warming. Until then, not so much.

 

 

Can people negatively impact the environment? Of course. Just look at Chernobyl for one good example. But no matter how widespread or long-lasting the effects are, almost all pollution usually ends up staying within the localized area. If you pollute in New York, it ain't gonna reach Australia, and vice-versa. I simply have a hard time believing that humans can permanently change the environment of the entire globe with anything short of widespread nuclear warfare or something similarly apocalyptic.

[The Niggardly King 0]

eh it aint no big deal, really ice breaks all the time, it might melt down, but it's so cold up there there might be a new big chunck of ice in like two weeks so this aint nothing to worry about

[Twisted Intestine 0]

We all need to live in Earthships. Seriously.

 

http://earthship.net/

 

It's the way of the future!

[dubq 0]

eh it aint no big deal, really ice breaks all the time, it might melt down, but it's so cold up there there might be a new big chunck of ice in like two weeks so this aint nothing to worry about

 

"Just ask this Scientician..."

[dubq 0]

At what point will the symptoms become severe enough that people (read: conservatives) take them seriously?

 

It's a legit question, treat it as a hypothetical if you must. I'd really like to know what it will take

I'm not really a conservative, but I'm not a global warming disciple. So to make me believe it and care about it, you'd have to prove all of the following things, with hard factual evidence, beyond a shadow of a doubt:

 

1. The planet really is getting hotter.

 

2. The increase in heat will negatively affect humanity.

 

3. It's getting hotter fast enough that significant effects will show up within, oh, the next century.

 

4. Humans are causing this and it's not a natural phenomenon.

 

5. There's actually anything we can really do to stop it.

 

 

If you could provide undeniable numerical data to prove every one of those, then I'd care about global warming. Until then, not so much.

 

 

Can people negatively impact the environment? Of course. Just look at Chernobyl for one good example. But no matter how widespread or long-lasting the effects are, almost all pollution usually ends up staying within the localized area. If you pollute in New York, it ain't gonna reach Australia, and vice-versa. I simply have a hard time believing that humans can permanently change the environment of the entire globe with anything short of widespread nuclear warfare or something similarly apocalyptic.

 

I'm not a global warming disciple either - but I am a conservative, and even I think you're being incredibly naive and ignorant in this post. Especially where you assert that pretty much only nuclear catastrophes can adversely effect the environment. Wow. Just wow.

 

It's not about whether pollution in NYC travels to and affects Australia. It's about reducing pollution EVERYWHERE for a collective effect on World pollution. Regardless of whether you believe in global warming or not, reducing localized pollution is still a good thing because enough reduction in localized pollution reduces the overall pollution on planet Earth. Good thing. That is, unless you like breathing smog.

[Dobbs 3K 0]

Yeah, cutting down on smog cuts down on asthma and crap. Duh. Everyone always ignores the local effects of pollution.

[EricMM 0]

Support local wind energy co-ops!

 

It does cost more, but not THAT much more AND if you power has been going up 50% annually like mine has, it won't cost more for much longer.

[NoCalMike 0]

I think regardless of "OMG Global Warmning...it's the end of the world, yo" it is a good idea to cut down on emissions period. Look, Los Angeles has a cloud of smog that sits over the city, as a lot of other cities do I would imagine. Now, regardless of "Global Warmning" how is THAT a good thing? Pollution and Waste being dumped into our waterways, how is THAT a good thing?

 

Whether these types of problems are solved because of people acknowleding "global warming" or just because people want to get serious about cleaning up our breathing air/drinking water/food supplies is irrelevent to me, I just want the stuff cleaned up and monitored better.

 

And this is probably what I don't understand the most about the "conservative" position on the matter. I know most of them don't believe in "Global Warmning" perse, but it seems as if they take it a step further and refuse to acknowledge any problems with pollution in general, as if they afraid that acknowleding anything means they are giving in to Global Warmning rhetoric.

[Guest (Loggins Name)]

Global Warmning is as bad as religon is good.

[The Niggardly King 0]

Global warming is good and religion is bad?

 

 

[Guest]

Religon is good.

[The Niggardly King 0]

Eh, it's alright.

[Jingus 0]

you assert that pretty much only nuclear catastrophes can adversely effect the environment. Wow. Just wow.

Except that's completely not what I said.

I simply have a hard time believing that humans can permanently change the environment of the entire globe

I wasn't even talking about local pollution, the item under debate is GLOBAL warming. I was talking about end-of-the-world doomsday scenarios, and I just don't see a coal-burning power plant or something similar having that kind of impact.

 

It's not about whether pollution in NYC travels to and affects Australia. It's about reducing pollution EVERYWHERE for a collective effect on World pollution. Regardless of whether you believe in global warming or not, reducing localized pollution is still a good thing because enough reduction in localized pollution reduces the overall pollution on planet Earth. Good thing. That is, unless you like breathing smog.

And where did I ever say pollution is good? You're making me out to be like a villain off Captain Planet or something here. Of COURSE localized pollution hurts that particular area. Nobody's debating that.

[Nightwing 0]

I think regardless of "OMG Global Warmning...it's the end of the world, yo" it is a good idea to cut down on emissions period. Look, Los Angeles has a cloud of smog that sits over the city, as a lot of other cities do I would imagine. Now, regardless of "Global Warmning" how is THAT a good thing? Pollution and Waste being dumped into our waterways, how is THAT a good thing?

 

Whether these types of problems are solved because of people acknowleding "global warming" or just because people want to get serious about cleaning up our breathing air/drinking water/food supplies is irrelevent to me, I just want the stuff cleaned up and monitored better.

 

And this is probably what I don't understand the most about the "conservative" position on the matter. I know most of them don't believe in "Global Warmning" perse, but it seems as if they take it a step further and refuse to acknowledge any problems with pollution in general, as if they afraid that acknowleding anything means they are giving in to Global Warmning rhetoric.

 

This is the logic I follow. It shouldn't matter whether or not Global Warning is occurring actively. We should always be striving to be more eco-friendly, if only for the fact that resources are finite and life is better with a healthier environment. Screw arguing about whether it is or isn't happening; does it really hurt us to make more fuel-efficient cars and cut down on our emissions?

[Guest panthermatt7]

I think regardless of "OMG Global Warmning...it's the end of the world, yo" it is a good idea to cut down on emissions period. Look, Los Angeles has a cloud of smog that sits over the city, as a lot of other cities do I would imagine. Now, regardless of "Global Warmning" how is THAT a good thing? Pollution and Waste being dumped into our waterways, how is THAT a good thing?

 

Whether these types of problems are solved because of people acknowleding "global warming" or just because people want to get serious about cleaning up our breathing air/drinking water/food supplies is irrelevent to me, I just want the stuff cleaned up and monitored better.

 

And this is probably what I don't understand the most about the "conservative" position on the matter. I know most of them don't believe in "Global Warmning" perse, but it seems as if they take it a step further and refuse to acknowledge any problems with pollution in general, as if they afraid that acknowleding anything means they are giving in to Global Warmning rhetoric.

 

This is the logic I follow. It shouldn't matter whether or not Global Warning is occurring actively. We should always be striving to be more eco-friendly, if only for the fact that resources are finite and life is better with a healthier environment. Screw arguing about whether it is or isn't happening; does it really hurt us to make more fuel-efficient cars and cut down on our emissions?

 

Thank you, thank you and thank you for this post.

 

Even if global warming hasn't led us to an immediate doomsday, how is that a signal that we shouldn't worry about curbing our pollution on a worldwide level? Even if we're not facing a very negative scenario, we would eventually -- right?

 

People overestimate just how many scientists disagree with the concept of global warming. Climate change is agreed upon by more people than evolution is, people. My father, the Limbaugh-following uberconservative, believes that all scientists are plotting with Al Gore to raise our taxes; he also thinks Obama shouldn't be elected president because he would "make whites the minority," though... so you kind of have to take his views with a grain of salt.

 

[dubq 0]

[

It's not about whether pollution in NYC travels to and affects Australia. It's about reducing pollution EVERYWHERE for a collective effect on World pollution. Regardless of whether you believe in global warming or not, reducing localized pollution is still a good thing because enough reduction in localized pollution reduces the overall pollution on planet Earth. Good thing. That is, unless you like breathing smog.

And where did I ever say pollution is good? You're making me out to be like a villain off Captain Planet or something here. Of COURSE localized pollution hurts that particular area. Nobody's debating that.

 

Maybe I read your post wrong but what I'm saying is that if you reduce localized pollution in enough areas, this reduces world pollution. So yes, in a way, localized pollution effects the entire planet. Get enough of it in enough places and then you've got a royally fucked planet. That's what I was getting at. If you were not stating the opposite, my apologies. But that's how I read it anyway.

[EricMM 0]

Jingus probably doesn't even consider CO2 to be a pollutant.

[Guest Tzar Lysergic]

I think there's a lot of reasons to adopt environmental conservation policies that are more pressing than global warming. How about the immediate quality of food, water, and air? I heard a report recently that listed Indiana in the bottom five states in the nation in terms of air and water quality. This state isn't THAT industrialized outside of the eastern Chicago area. Pitiful. As much time as I spend outdoors, I do care about the environment, just not in the partisan political scope that is the global warming debate. The cosmos is going to fuck up more shit on this planet than the tire factory.

[Nightwing 0]

Jingus probably doesn't even consider CO2 to be a pollutant.

 

Well, it's a shitty greenhouse gas, but a greenhouse gas nonetheless I suppose.

[Firestarter 0]

Jingus probably doesn't even consider CO2 to be a pollutant.

If you do, then as I said: bulldoze the rainforests.

[SuperJerk 0]

Jingus probably doesn't even consider CO2 to be a pollutant.

If you do, then as I said: bulldoze the rainforests.

 

You'll need to produce some evidence that the one-third of the amount of the methane in the atmosphere that is from plants plus the CO2 emitted by burning or decaying trees is greater than the amount of CO2 scrubbed from the atmosphere by plants' photosynthesis process before I'm convinced.

[Firestarter 0]

No problem. For added irony, I'll link you to a website run by "global warming" lunatics.

 

http://www.planetextinction.com/planet_ext...nk_reversal.htm