VICE: Our Rising Oceans

2seaoat wrote:It is pure evil propaganda.  The science mapping the ice is not in dispute.  We are losing massive amounts of ice and to have these fools trying to convince folks with limited reading or alternative information sources that Global Warming is a hoax and the ice at the poles is actually growing.......idiocy would be too kind, but it is the evil of the propagandist who has pecuniary interests which must be revealed.  We see how easily our Congress is bought and paid for by foreign nations, and the oil industry, as they use racial strife to divide and conquer America without invasion.....we are seeing our wealth and blood stolen by evil.  It is time for the light of truth to be shined on the propagandist.

ZVUGKTUBM wrote:Well, I am going to go on record as being a climate change denier, so hit me with your best shots.

I cannot accept the arguments that our coastal areas will be flooded from sea level rise in 50 years (or less as some have claimed) because of CO2/GHG emissions.

Part of my problem is I cannot wrap my arms around where this all came from. I have said before that I earned my MS in Biology and Coastal Zone Studies from UWF at age 40, in 1992. My coursework included the political, social, and scientific aspects of the coastal zone. Climate change and global warming was not even mentioned in any of my coursework by professors or students alike. It should have been a front-burner issue in 1992; just as much as it is now.

I am just highly suspicious of a movement that sprang-up seemingly out of nowhere, craves political power, and desires to control mankind in a very draconian fashion. There is more to this than just 'rising seas'.

KarlRove wrote:Climate change is wealth redistribution by the scaredy cat liberals.

ZVUGKTUBM wrote:Well, I am going to go on record as being a climate change denier, so hit me with your best shots.

I cannot accept the arguments that our coastal areas will be flooded from sea level rise in 50 years (or less as some have claimed) because of CO2/GHG emissions.

Part of my problem is I cannot wrap my arms around where this all came from. I have said before that I earned my MS in Biology and Coastal Zone Studies from UWF at age 40, in 1992. My coursework included the political, social, and scientific aspects of the coastal zone. Climate change and global warming was not even mentioned in any of my coursework by professors or students alike. It should have been a front-burner issue in 1992; just as much as it is now.

I am just highly suspicious of a movement that sprang-up seemingly out of nowhere, craves political power, and desires to control mankind in a very draconian fashion. There is more to this than just 'rising seas'.

2seaoat wrote:I think if Z takes the time to see the sophisticated ice mapping techniques from airplanes being used to measure the total loss of ice, and the length that these measurements have been happening, he will modify his opinions.  There is no debate on ice loss.

2seaoat wrote:Your link is a total lie.  It is completely wrong.  Did you watch the Vice report.  For twenty years they have been measuring the ice, and for twenty years they have been losing massive amounts of ice.  The satellite photos show a gain to the east of one meter thick ice, which is largely a direct result of the massive loss of ice from the western side where the depth of ice is almost a mile thick, and it is melting at an amazing rate.  It is this melting and condensation which is creating the thin sea ice to the east.  They have been measuring the ice not from satellites but by ground piercing sonar on planes which fly exact measuring routes and the data is irrefutable......massive amounts of ice are gone, and the sea level is starting to rise with measurable incursions of sea into former land areas in Bangladesh and other island nations.  

You posted lies from an obscure source......how did that happen.....were you just lucky to find it, or are you part of an evil cabal passing lies as propaganda for big Coal.   I think we know the answer.    

2seaoat wrote:You did not see the vice report, or you are a simple liar.  The entire expansion of the ice sheet is less than one meter thick......and a direct result of the massive ice lost on the western coastal regions where the ice is close to a mile thick.  As it melts and condenses, it creates massive thin ice to the east.  They have been measuring the ice melt in detail for twenty years.  So let me help you with the math.....Antartica is 10 times the size of the thin one meter of ice expansion your lying source tries to befuddle the slow witted.  There has been reported as much as 20 feet of ice melting below Antarctica in a year, or sixty times the ice melt of your silly lies about ice expansion.   Please watch the vice report and try to deny the math or the loss of ice......citing false science is like a person explaining the sinking of the titanic as being caused by the band playing as it sank........your cite is an outright lie because it assumes that no ice is melting under the mile high ice sheet over the land mass......

ZVUGKTUBM wrote:

2seaoat wrote:I think if Z takes the time to see the sophisticated ice mapping techniques from airplanes being used to measure the total loss of ice, and the length that these measurements have been happening, he will modify his opinions.  There is no debate on ice loss.

I will admit that I have not studied the subject of climate change deeply. If I ever do I still will not accept the notion of imminent tipping points being reached that will leave Santa Rosa Island flooded within 20-30 years. That reeks of fear mongering.

As far as the science being a slam-dunk with “100% consensus,” I am not going to join the herd that forms the so-called consensus—at least not yet, anyway. I will take it upon myself to study more, however.

What bothers me the most about the man-made climate change movement are its political aspects and aims. CO2/GHG emission limits placed on nations are entirely unenforceable without a global governing body, an enforcement arm (a global army) to enforce compliance, and nations need to be willing to give up their sovereignty to the global governing body. I don’t ever see this happening peacefully, and I certainly do not want the United States to submit to such governance.

Moreover, even without global governance, if politicians in the U.S. decide to enforce CO2/GHG emissions mandates throughout our country, the tentacles of the government will encroach much deeper into our lives than has ever occurred previously. I can already see where this might go.