Town Square

Post a New Topic

Chasing Ice is a must see for anyone over 10.

Original post made by Alice Smith on Dec 21, 2012

Last night at the Aquarius, 3 of us were mesmorized by CHASING ICE, a documentary by James Balog on the disappearance and calfing of glaciers.


It is a photographic blockbuster. Do not miss this.

Alice Smith

Comments (61)

Posted by Chris Zaharias, a resident of Crescent Park
on Dec 22, 2012 at 9:55 am

Is it a preachy political statement, or is it really just appreciating the power of nature?


Posted by a scientist, a resident of Meadow Park
on Dec 22, 2012 at 10:27 am

It is both, Chris. The numbers they present are a bit suspect.
It is another in a long line of "the world is coming to an end because of how we treat the enivronment" films.
Wait for it on DVD


Posted by Anonymous, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Dec 22, 2012 at 10:33 am

Checked it out on Flickster. 97% of critics liked it, and a nearly equal number of audience liked it.


Posted by Anonymous, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Dec 22, 2012 at 12:30 pm

We're still dithering, especially in Palo Alto city hall.


Posted by thanks, a resident of Downtown North
on Dec 22, 2012 at 12:54 pm

Thanks for the tip. I'll check it out.


Posted by stephen levy, a resident of University South
on Dec 22, 2012 at 1:54 pm

stephen levy is a registered user.

The photography is breathtaking. They set cameras to record the size and shape of the glaciers over time in Iceland, Greenland, Alaska and Glacier National Park.

It is not preachy at all and the photographer was skeptical of climate change before he took the pictures.

Mostly it is these amazing picures about glaciers and the power of nature.


Posted by Sean, a resident of Midtown
on Dec 22, 2012 at 2:08 pm

Russia is now suffering its greatest big freeze in over 70 years. Can we get a great movie about this huge and deadly natural event?


Posted by Stella, a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Dec 22, 2012 at 2:17 pm

Must to challenging, having to do all the mental gymnastics to deny what most of the science community has proven in peer reviewed study after study.

Especially after the extreme weather we've been having just the last couple years.


Posted by Sean, a resident of Midtown
on Dec 22, 2012 at 3:14 pm

>most of the science community has proven in peer reviewed study after study.

Piltdown Man was also peer reviwed, and accepted by the science community, back in the day.

I am just asking that an amazing movie be made about the Great Russian Freeze, circa 2012.


Posted by Stella, a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Dec 22, 2012 at 3:31 pm

Sean: then get to work. A half million up front should get the project rolling, then you can be a big time movie producer, interviewed on Fox, become a fringe conservative mouthpiece, the whole bit. Go for it!

Then write the book. Newsmax will buy 50k copies, Freedomworks and ALEC another 50k, which puts you on the NYT list as a best "seller".

Worked for Breitbart. Worked for that ACORN pimp/hooker costume kid, before the felony charge for B&E.

Don't worry, Sean, facts never stopped them either.

Or just stop griping and watch the movie.


Posted by Sean, a resident of Midtown
on Dec 22, 2012 at 5:46 pm

>Especially after the extreme weather we've been having just the last couple years.

You need to be specific...what extreme weather, compared to the last ten decades? Or the last ten centuries?


Posted by Stella, a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Dec 22, 2012 at 9:41 pm

"The list of warmest years on record is dominated by years from this millennium; each of the last 11 years (2001–2011) features as one of the 12 warmest on record."

That kind of extreme.

20 warmest years on record (C anomaly from 1901–2000 mean)
Year ... Global .. Land .. Ocean
2005 0.6183 0.9593 0.4896
2010 0.6171 0.9642 0.4885
1998 0.5984 0.8320 0.5090
2003 0.5832 0.7735 0.5108
2002 0.5762 0.8318 0.4798
2006 0.5623 0.8158 0.4669
2009 0.5591 0.7595 0.4848
2007 0.5509 0.9852 0.3900
2004 0.5441 0.7115 0.4819
2001 0.5188 0.7207 0.4419
2011 0.5124 0.8189 0.3970
2008 0.4842 0.7801 0.3745
1997 0.4799 0.5583 0.4502
1999 0.4210 0.6759 0.3240
1995 0.4097 0.6533 0.3196
2000 0.3899 0.5174 0.3409
1990 0.3879 0.5479 0.3283
1991 0.3380 0.4087 0.3110
1988 0.3028 0.4192 0.2595
1987 0.2991 0.2959 0.3005

The values in the table above are anomalies from the 1901–2000 global mean of 13.9C. For instance, the +0.55C anomaly in 2007 added to the 1901–2000 mean of 13.9C gives a global average temperature of 14.45 C (58.00 F) for 2007.

The coolest year in the record was 1911.


Posted by Anon., a resident of Crescent Park
on Dec 23, 2012 at 12:11 am

I saw this and want to see it, but I am not sure I can really bear paying to see yet another documentary where I see basically better shots of the same thing.

Our whole media seems to just replay the same old stuff. This glacier thing has been going on since even before Al Gore's Inconvenient truth and the realities of the audience and market mean that in terms of science and real analysis not much will or could be said. This is why the market utterly fails us as a means for evolving culture ... it always goes after the worst and lowest common denominator. The free-market fascination is a Newtonian low-level motivator that when pushed into cancerous primacy does not fit an Einsteinian living systems view or move towards any positive vision of any philosophy, just creates the chaotic excuse for those who confidently meddle to meddle and mess around with our common legacy ... since no humanistic or logical view of that would ever justify that.

Over and over we see pictures and the same pleas all over, and it is all to get money. Someone should go and put a satellite in orbit for all of us to watch on the web so we can get our own base data ... on everything.

It's so true that human beings just cannot get back looking at the short-term linear realities of everything, and that is one reason we do not get a lot of varied ideas ... there are so many that it betrays the real ignorance we have about almost everything, except the tricks that some of us know and can use to manipulate everyone else. The shame we should all feel that none of us really know if we have already pushed things too far and will end up killing off most of what we have called the world for the last 10,000 years.

I enjoyed Herzog's "Encounters At The End Of The World" simply because it was mostly a travelogue of a very interesting place. I am just not sure I am interested in this because all it does it seems to do is highlight for me how chaotic our world is run ... like a runaway train or out of control car.

But, I'm glad you enjoyed it Alice Smith, a resident of the Green Acres neighborhood. Thanks for posting.


Posted by Sean, a resident of Midtown
on Dec 23, 2012 at 7:42 am


"THE ARCTIC OCEAN IS WARMING UP, ICEBERGS ARE GROWING SCARCER AND IN SOME PLACES THE SEALS ARE FINDING THE WATER TOO HOT. REPORTS ALL POINT TO A RADICAL CHANGE IN CLIMATE CONDITIONS AND HITHERTO UNHEARD-OF TEMPERATURES IN THE ARCTIC ZONE. EXPEDITIONS REPORT THAT SCARCELY ANY ICE HAS BEEN MET WITH AS FAR NORTH AS 81 DEGREES 29 MINUTES. GREAT MASSES OF ICE HAVE BEEN REPLACED BY MORAINES OF EARTH AND STONES, WHILE AT MANY POINTS WELL KNOWN GLACIERS HAVE ENTIRELY DISAPPEARED."

US WEATHER BUREAU, 1922

Stella, could you please provide the data for 1915 - 1925? The Great Greenland Meltdown must have due to global warming, right?

Imagine the great movie that could have been made back then?! How did ANY polar bears survive that disaster?


Posted by Stella, a resident of Crescent Park
on Dec 23, 2012 at 2:35 pm

Sean:

That quote from above is NOT from the US Weather Bureau. It is a COMMERCE Dept report. It is a series of reports sent TO the weather bureau at that time, as published in a newspaper, hardly a scientific paper, let alone peer reviewed science. Anecdotal, verbal reports.

THAT IS REALLY LAME OF YOU. No wonder everyone laughs at the deniers, if that is the best you have.

What's the next line in the news article that you left out?

"Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers. . . "

The same guys that reported giant sea monsters a generation before.

Really lame.

No wonder you don't substantiate your claims.


Posted by Anon., a resident of Crescent Park
on Dec 23, 2012 at 4:00 pm

> THAT IS REALLY LAME OF YOU. No wonder everyone laughs at the deniers, if that is the best you have.

The deniers are nothing to laugh at, they very well already could have allowed and even driven that marginal damage that could have or will push the climate into an unknown and unstably hostile state, and not to mention that the continual use of these tactics makes democracy, even representative democracy a sad illusion of the past.


Posted by Sean, a resident of Midtown
on Dec 24, 2012 at 10:17 am

The Arctic meltig circa 1922 (from NOAA archives):

Web Link


Posted by Anon., a resident of Crescent Park
on Dec 24, 2012 at 10:30 am

Sean, you seen to be equating some anecdotal reports of local weather in Norway in 1922 to global satellite data of today. I think most now realize that climate change is not just a matter of every location getting warmer, and that the transformation of large areas of the north pole from white ice that refects heat to dark water that absorbs heat affects more than just a local area. Not to mention all the other areas of the planet that have changed along with the constituents of the atmosphere. Did you find anything in NOA's archives as to the last time there was no ice at the North Pole?

I guess we just find out what you climate change deniers will say when it finally becomes obvious that they are wrong ... you just say "Sorry", or will you even bother to do that?


Posted by Sean, a resident of Midtown
on Dec 24, 2012 at 11:16 am

That report in the NOAA archives is not just anecdotal stuff(by experienced local observers)...there were serious temperature intersects by a respected oceanographer. If you and the other global warming alarmists want to make a big deal about current Arctic ice dimunition, then yoou also need to explain the 1922 obervations, when atmospheric CO2 was (presumably) lower than it is today. Surely, the measurements that Stella provides must also contain similar measurements from the 1915-1925 period, since her quoted data is based on a baseline that includes that period.

Stella, please provide the data for 1915 - 1925.

Another thing about anectdotal obervations: When Innuit coastal villages claim that the old timers knew that the ice was more abundant in the past, the alrmists are all over it, and agree with them! Yet the same alarmists dismiss the obervations of experienced Norwegian seafarers.

Let me try this another way: Assume that the Arctic was in a relative melt in 1922, then explain what caused it. No need for adhominen attacks, just offer your opinion about what casued the Great Melt of 1922.


Posted by Stella, a resident of Crescent Park
on Dec 24, 2012 at 11:18 am

Sean: giving us link just verifies your example is as bogus as previously described; thanks to Anon for thoughtfully summing it up. I hereby present the un-thoughtful reply to your nonsensical anecdote.

"the American consul at Bergen Norway, submitted the following to the State Department. The Arctic seems to be warming up. Reports from fishermen, seal hunters, and explorers who sail the seas..."

Reports from Men Who Sail The Seas

ahem...

"In the town where I was born
Lived a MAN WHO SAILED TO SEA
And he told us of his life
In the land of submarines

So we sailed up to the sun
Till we found the sea of green"

You know the rest; and the band begins to play...


Posted by Stella, a resident of Crescent Park
on Dec 24, 2012 at 11:23 am

"Another thing about anectdotal obervations: When Innuit coastal villages claim that the old timers knew that the ice was more abundant in the past, the alrmists are all over it, and agree with them!"

The Inuit anecdotal data was in the IPPC?

Or any other peer reviewed study?

I must have missed that in the IPPC. Really cool for you that you can just make up and assign actions to the broad group "the alrmists" without evidence!!

Sean: 15-25? I haven't done that search, obviously you have.

Let us know what else you find from the Men Who Sail The Seas.


Posted by 2cents, a resident of Barron Park
on Dec 24, 2012 at 12:51 pm

What about the Global Cooling crisis in the 70's? Big front cover stories ran in Time and Newsweek predicting world catastrophes of climate change albeit this was freezing weather caused by human activities. Well, that cold weather crisis changed to warming trends, so now we have the opposite. That's why Global Warming sounds fishy to me. (It reminds me of the Indulgences people were encouraged to pay in order to save their souls, meanwhile the churches used that money to build St. Peters in Rome.) And, climate/weather does change.

If we are talking about environmental crises due to human activities, I agree wholeheartedly with trying our best to clean up and protect the environment.


Posted by Sean, a resident of Midtown
on Dec 24, 2012 at 1:27 pm

>Sean: 15-25? I haven't done that search, obviously you have.

Oh come on, Stella, you MUST have access to that data, since you based your limited data set on that baseline. Just give us the 1915-1925 data. Then attempt to explain the 1922 meltdown. A very simple and straight-forward request.


Posted by Stella, a resident of Crescent Park
on Dec 24, 2012 at 2:01 pm

Sean: honestly don't get what you're looking for. Equally as obvious, you seem to know the answer -- enlighten us, now that you are past your anecdotal tales from the Men Who Sail The Seas.

Her's the dates you requested by decade, ie.. the warmest decades being the most recent. Are you cherry picking 15-25 because it makes your case better than the Men Who Sail The Seas?


Years ...... Temp. anomaly
1880–1889 -0.274 C (−0.493 F)
1890–1899 -0.254 C (−0.457 F)
1900–1909 -0.259 C (−0.466 F)
1910–1919 -0.276 C (−0.497 F)
1920–1929 -0.175 C (−0.315 F)
1930–1939 -0.043 C (−0.0774 F)
1940–1949 0.035 C (0.0630 F)
1950–1959 -0.020 C (−0.0360 F)
1960–1969 -0.014 C (−0.0252 F)
1970–1979 -0.001 C (−0.00180 F)
1980–1989 0.176 C (0.317 F)
1990–1999 0.313 C (0.563 F)
2000–2009 0.513 C (0.923 F)

Merry Christmas, Sean. Stew on it a little more and look real hard for a very specific set of numbers that let you try to tell most of the climate community that they (and all their data) are wrong.

And Sean from Midtown is right.

Why don't we talk in January, when the final data is in, and 2012 is declared the warmest year on record in the US. And we can discuss this: "According to the November 27, 2012 U.S. Drought Monitor report, 62.7 percent of the contiguous United States was experiencing moderate-to-exceptional drought"

And the band begins to play...


Posted by Sean, a resident of Midtown
on Dec 24, 2012 at 2:09 pm

Stella,

Please note that the temperature differential (from the baseline) was COLDER during the 1922 melt. I knew this, but I wanted you to provide the data, so that you would not accuse me of cooking it. Colder temperatures, but melting Arctic: How would you explain this, Stella?


Posted by Stella, a resident of Crescent Park
on Dec 24, 2012 at 2:29 pm

"Colder temperatures, but melting Arctic: How would you explain this, Stella?" Bad verbal anecdotes from Norway in 1922? Thought we solved that, with lyrics, even.

Or any number of other reasons, but sorry Sean, I'm not going to look up all the possibilities for you, when you'll just copy and paste something from newsmax or some other ("our math is the only real math") fringe site.

So I give up.....

Sean, YOU ARE CORRECT!!! All the scientists who have spent their life dedicated to the study of climate are WRONG, and SEAN FROM MIDTOWN IS THE ONLY ONE WHO CAN SEE TRUTH!!!!

Happy now?

Seriously, no matter how much data I show you, you'll never see it because you are so blinded.

It's like Karl Rove making a complete fool of himself on election night, not admitting Obama was winning in a landslide, because Karl's "special numbers" had a secret TRUTH NO ONE ELSE COULD SEE!!!!! No one else could see the secret numbers that Karl could see, even the Fox number crunchers, as skewed as they were, were wrong, too.

Sean and Karl have a special, divine look at the real numbers that mere mortals, and scientists, just can't see as clear!

YOU ARE CORRECT, Sean!

Have a safe holiday.


Posted by Sean, a resident of Midtown
on Dec 24, 2012 at 2:47 pm

Stella,

Let me suggest a possibe solution for you: Warm currents, despite colder average surface temperatures. Unrelated to CO2 or anthropogenic forcing. More likely due to salinity gradients with or without undersea deep heat production (i.e. thermal vents).

Keep your mind open, Stella. There is a wonderful world out there.

Merry Christmas.

Sean


Posted by Sharon, a resident of Midtown
on Dec 24, 2012 at 3:51 pm

We can no longer deny the facts

- man is affecting the climate

Just cost too much to do anything about it. So what if China is taking over the solar market and making all the money.

Germany too. They have at least a million homes under solar.


Posted by Anon., a resident of Crescent Park
on Dec 24, 2012 at 8:40 pm

All these historic observations have a point, there was a mini-iceage when some of them were taken ... the reasons are accounted for. Just hand-waving and saying it got cold or hot before is pointless.


Posted by Sharon, a resident of Midtown
on Dec 24, 2012 at 9:09 pm


actually the solar program in Germany has been a complete failure-what fools who try solar in the most overcast country in Europe? it was a disaster.

Germany now relies upon coal and oil/gas from Russia for energy

Variations in gamma rays account for 90% of all warming

Al Gores scam made him and us a lot of money-but it is a scam

It is a legal-to this point-scam




Posted by Stella, a resident of Crescent Park
on Dec 28, 2012 at 8:07 am

Sean, I'm sorry, I misled you. About the lack of peer reviewed studies. I was unaware of the peer reviewed studies that support climate change denial. I was implying there were none. In fact, there ARE 24 peer reviewed studies supporting the deniers.

Shcokingly, you didn't have the answer that supported your denier case.

I'm a little stunned. Here's the link to a chart at the St Louis Post Dispatch, a mainstream newspaper.

Web Link

A conservative did a review of all the peer reviewed studies -- TWENTY FOUR support climate change denial!

"It was produced by James Lawrence Powell, a former member of the National Science Board under Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush. He did a broad search in scientific journals for every peer-reviewed study of climate change and/or global warming since 1991."

Obviously not a flaming lib, having worked for Reagan and Bush 1.

He made a chart of all the studies, with a nice slice reserved for the 24 studies that support Sean.

24 for Sean and the deniers.

Of course, appoiinted by two very conservative Presidents, he was bound to find those 24 studies that support Sean and the deniers, including those all important seal hunters that Sean constantly refers to.

24 for Sean and the deniers.

13,926 for the reality based community

17/100ths of one percent of the studies support Sean and the fringe seal hunters he hides behind.

Well over 99.8% recognize Climate Change.

The StL Post: "He found 13,950 of them, the combined work of 33,690 scientists from around the world. Precisely 24 of the 13,950 studies rejected global warming. That piece represents 17 hundredths of 1 percent of the pie. End of debate"

Again, Sean, I'm sorry, I misled you. 24 studies. I feel so bad, just awful, that I wasn't more clear.

Out of 13,950.

Not eeven enough to be called a 'rounding error'.

End of the (so-called) 'debate'.


Posted by Sean, a resident of Midtown
on Dec 28, 2012 at 8:23 am

100% of the Bristish scientific establishment believed in Piltdown Man, at one point.

24 skeptical studies is not too bad, considering the true belief mentality that rules of over the politicized granting agencies.

Let us know when the arctic ice melts as much as it did in 1922.


Posted by Stella, a resident of Crescent Park
on Dec 28, 2012 at 8:47 am

24 studies.

Not even one/half of one percent.

HALF, of half of one percent.

(notice the decimal point) .17%

17/100th of one percent

That, my friends, is the entirety of the science community that support Sean, Exxon, Shell and the coal companies. Together, the coal and oil companies fund a marketing campaign that Sean believes in wholeheartedly. So do many folks that don't have the time or interest in investigating the facts. Polls show that many members of the public believe that scientists substantially disagree about human-caused global warming.

We know that science, as a whole, does not disagree about climate change.

17/100ths disagree.

Not even a rounding error.

Sean: how much do you get paid, directly or indirectly (ie.. the oil funded Heartland Institute) to not believe 99.93% of scientists?

You must be getting something for it. No normal person, presented with the facts would continue to believe something as ridiculous as that, unless he was being paid, like the bio-stitutes at Heartland.

You're smart enough to be making a little something on it, aren't you? With all the money that Exxon shovels to their supporters. You're in on it, aren't you?

If not, that's really sad. That means you're just a consumer of the absurd notions being presented by those paid by Exxon.

Really sad, that.

17/100th of one percent -- and they're getting paid, while Sean, for free, laps it up.

Late at night, when the reealization hits, that's gotta hurt.

17/100th of one percent


Posted by Stella, a resident of Crescent Park
on Dec 28, 2012 at 8:51 am

Note to all: I refuse to engage in Sean's deflection about Piltdown. It is pure deflection. He desperately seeks to change the subject, and by using false claims such as 100% of science believed in Piltdown, seeks to shift the discussion away from Climate Change.

Not going to happen, Sean, so keep up your false claims. I'll discuss your Piltdown errors in another thread, not here.

17/100ths of one percent agree with Sean.

Not even a rounding error.


Posted by Alice Smith, a resident of Green Acres
on Dec 28, 2012 at 11:48 am

This exchange has been enlightening. Sadly, many think that "Chasing Ice" is a commercial movie - this documentary is enlightening in its visual camera studies from 2007 to 2011. This 5 years and the graphs that they have devolved from ice core extractions may be more educative than the above exchanges. Do go and see for yourselves. For $7 or whatever fee you pay, you will be informed.


Posted by Sean, a resident of Midtown
on Dec 28, 2012 at 12:32 pm

Stella,

Pick your best climate professional person to make your case. If you are so convinced, it should not be a problem. Please provide a link to his/her arguments.

I will offer Richard Lindzen (MIT professor). He can easily be found through a Google search.

Don't forget to let us all know when Greenland melts to the 1922 level.


Posted by D MacDonald, a resident of Professorville
on Dec 28, 2012 at 1:19 pm

Stella: stay with the 99.83% of science that have peer reviewed studies that state that Climate Change is real. You've done good work in exposing the silly arguments here.

Let the fringe keep their <1% (00.17%, actually,) and blather on, spouting Exxon's talking points. Someone has to take Exxon's money, might as well have it flow locally to the anonymous poster who believes fables from fur traders in 1919.


Posted by Sean, a resident of Midtown
on Dec 28, 2012 at 1:33 pm

It is too bad that the true believers hide behind the super majority opinions, funded by the political true believers. This prevents rational debate.

There was a time that Darwin was not accepted either. Same problem as now: It can't be true because everyone knows that it couldn't be that way!

Someone, from the true believer group, put up your best spokesman, with a concise and reasoned argument. If you choose Al Gore, that is your choice, however, I would suggest someone that is serious.

Then let the debate begin with Richard Lindzen. Lindzen is not flawless, but he argues the science and the politics, from a view of a recognized expert in climate, at MIT.


Posted by D MacDonald, a resident of Professorville
on Dec 28, 2012 at 1:55 pm

99.83% is now a "super majority opinions, funded by the political true believers." So virtually all science is somehow secretly funded by politicians, forced to support climate change, for some ridiculous reason.

The remaining TINY sliver of 1 percent, funded by grants from Exxon, coal, etc are the real heroes, supposedly.

Dude: 99.83 vs 0.17

That's like 500 to 1. Well over 500 studies to every one that denies reality.

Your assessment of math is as bad as your assessment of science.

It does qualify you, however, to replace Karl Rove as a Fox election night ballot predictor.


Posted by Anon., a resident of Crescent Park
on Dec 28, 2012 at 2:00 pm

> It does qualify you, however, to replace Karl Rove as a Fox election night ballot predictor

LOL ... or a newscaster for FOX News.


Posted by Sean, a resident of Midtown
on Dec 28, 2012 at 2:41 pm

Still waiting for the true believers to put up their guy, with the arguments. Remember, Darwin's odds were worse than 500:1.

Just put it up.


Posted by D MacDonald, a resident of Professorville
on Dec 28, 2012 at 2:55 pm

500 to 1.

Why should I waste my time researching your Denier Conspiracy Theory of the Day, just to poke holes in it like Stella slayed all your other phony rants above, like the fur traders of 100 years ago? God bless her, she spent more time tracking down the crackpot theories than I would have.

Seal hunters? Shessh!

99.83% vs 0.17%

There IS consensus among international science. All you have is the conspiracy theory that government is somehow involved in 99.83% of the studies.

/snore


Posted by Sean, a resident of Midtown
on Dec 28, 2012 at 5:22 pm

Stella and D. Mac,

I am trying to engage you in a real debate, with the true facts being exposed. Why are the two of you so reluctant to engage?

Galileo said that the earth was not the center of the solar system...he said it was the sun. However, the Inquistion instructed him, otherwise. He was outgunned a million to one (or worse). So, super opinions are less persuasive than facts, at the end of the day.

Just put your main spokesman forward. Simple request. Surely, you must be able to do that, since you assume that your view is correct. Right?

Give me a name, and a concise argumant.


Posted by D MacDonald, a resident of Professorville
on Dec 28, 2012 at 7:53 pm

I can't speak for Stella, just for myself.

Sean proposes two laypersons "duke it out" with random debate, perhaps with links to some fringe website.

I propose we match up the experts. Peer reviewed papers.

My 13,950 studies.

Your 24 studies.

Debate closed. The scientific community has spoken.


Posted by Anon., a resident of Crescent Park
on Dec 28, 2012 at 7:58 pm

>The scientific community has spoken.

Really?

What did it say?

How do you know this is not one of those rare cases when what passes for scientific or public consensus is wrong ... it seems to happen quite a lot actually, and ironically is usually about big important things.


Posted by Sharon, a resident of Midtown
on Dec 28, 2012 at 8:20 pm



Our 4 kids saw the movie-they are all science or medicine graduates/undergraduates

They all say the movie is pantheistic pseudo science


Posted by Sean, a resident of Midtown
on Dec 28, 2012 at 8:34 pm

>Sean proposes two laypersons "duke it out" with random debate

No. I an requesting that the climate alarmists name their best professional scientific spokesman, with a link to his/her concise best argument. Then compare that argument to Richard Linzen's argument.

Surely, the alarmists can come up with a legitimate spokesman, right?


Posted by Sharon, a resident of Midtown
on Dec 28, 2012 at 9:00 pm

[Post removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]


Posted by D MacDonald, a resident of Professorville
on Dec 29, 2012 at 12:06 pm

Anon: >The scientific community has spoken. Really? What did it say?

The science community said Climate Change is real.

By a margin of over 500 to 1.

Only 24 of 13,950 studies support the deniers.

99.83% vs 0.17%

If you like odds like that, my guess is you are one of the ones keeping the lottery game afloat.

Lottery: a game invented for the math challenged.

Science has spoken. The debate is over.

Except for lottery fans. And the far right fringe.





Posted by Sean, a resident of Midtown
on Dec 29, 2012 at 12:22 pm

Forget about the long odds, etc. Just provide a credible spokesman that can make the alarmist's case. Such a simple request, yet so much diversion....

In terms of the horse race odds, my Seabisquit is Lindzen. Please bring forth your Secretariat, if you can find one. Then watch the final turn....


Posted by Gary, a resident of Midtown
on Dec 29, 2012 at 12:39 pm

[Post removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]


Posted by Sean, a resident of Midtown
on Dec 29, 2012 at 1:20 pm

>Seabiscuit was never 600-1

Against Secretariat? Probably 6000-1. The problem is that final turn.... where the truth is told.

Lindzen vs. who? Still waiting. Come on, alarmists, put your guy out there. What are you afraid of? It should be a very simple thing to do. Name him/her.

Let us not forget: 1922 meltdown of the Arctic. What caused it? Anthropogenic effects? If so, which ones?






Posted by Gary, a resident of Midtown
on Dec 29, 2012 at 1:36 pm

Po Sam... calling 99% of the scince world 'alarmists' when he has to adjust his tin foil conspiracy theory hat every hour.

500-1, science vs tinfoil

Those horses were from different eras, Sean, just like when I thought warming was a conspiracy an era ago.

The debate over warming is over. Argue solutions if ya want, quit trolling as a 500-1 underdog conspiricist


Posted by Sean, a resident of Midtown
on Dec 29, 2012 at 4:46 pm

>The debate over warming is over...

Says who? Just give me a spokesman from the alarmist camp who can explain it.

BTW, Javert, I am not 24601, no matter how you doth protest.


Posted by D MacDonald, a resident of Professorville
on Dec 30, 2012 at 9:33 am

Sean: ">The debate over warming is over... Says who?"

The science community said Climate Change is real, every industrialized country that has a national science institute, 500 studies support Climate Change for every denier conspiracist, the list goes on.

By a margin of over 500 to 1.

Only 24 of 13,950 peer reviewed studies support the deniers.

99.83% vs 0.17%

See ya Sean, S 's from Midtown, have a Happy New Year.

Don't forget to stock up on tin foil, I hear its on sale at Costco.


Posted by Sean, a resident of Midtown
on Dec 30, 2012 at 10:15 am

Global warming, as a theme, was put forth by Margaret Thatcher, in order to break a coal strike (she wanted nuclear power, as a counter to the coal interests). She allowed herself to be used by the academic community in England to fund various global warming scare tactics. Nothing has, fundamentally, changed since that time.


Posted by D MacDonald, a resident of Professorville
on Dec 30, 2012 at 10:24 am

So it's all Maggie Thatcher's fault? What a weakling, then going to war to look strong to get reelected.

Ronnie Reagan told her not to go into the Falklands, but she killed hundreds of Royal Navy men just to be a hero in time for her election.

Back to reality: Only 24 of 13,950 peer reviewed studies support the deniers.

99.83% vs 0.17%




Posted by D MacDonald, a resident of Professorville
on Dec 30, 2012 at 10:26 am

Meg Thatcher must have been really good, to get 13,900 studies done to confirm Change, yet almost no denier conspiracy theory studies.

Back away from the tin foil, Sam.


Posted by Thatchert, a resident of The Greenhouse
on Dec 30, 2012 at 9:42 pm

Thatcher invented global warming? I thought it was fur hunters and fisherman.


Posted by Sharon, a resident of Midtown
on Dec 30, 2012 at 9:55 pm


Global warming-caused by variations in cosmic ray activity-is good for us

Greenland will become green again, we can sail through the NW and NE passages

We can dramatically reduce our use of energy for heating during 9 months

Good news


Posted by thhatchert, a resident of The Greenhouse
on Dec 30, 2012 at 11:08 pm

A good thing? Are you insane??????

Rising sea levels?

Two thirds of the buildings inManhatten stillhave issues form Sandy. $60 billion in damage.

Agriculture will shift at huge cost, IN LIVES.

The NW passage compared to massive damage and loss of life.

Insane.

Completely insane.


If you were a member and logged in you could track comments from this story.

Post a comment

Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration. Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online. Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.

Name: *

Select your neighborhood or school community: * Not sure?

Comment: *

Verification code: *
Enter the verification code exactly as shown, using capital and lowercase letters, in the multi-colored box.

*Required Fields

Veggie Grill coming soon to Mountain View's San Antonio Center
By Elena Kadvany | 16 comments | 3,042 views

Allowing Unauthorized Immigrants to Learn and Earn Legally Will Help the Economy
By Steve Levy | 38 comments | 2,744 views

College applications: round three
By Sally Torbey | 26 comments | 2,007 views

Is HBO's Silicon Valley Any Good?
By Anita Felicelli | 18 comments | 1,973 views

PAUSD Leadership Challenges
By Paul Losch | 20 comments | 1,524 views