Thread: Massive Glacial Calving....Form your own opinions why.

Originally Posted by ramblingboy42

You are arriving at your position via folly.....folly is the state or quality of being foolish or the lack of understanding or absurdity.

And there's an equal amount of folly involved in using science to predict the future of this planet. I've come to realise that there's strong science to support every outcome contingency. Research always finds what it's looking for. For example - research A indicates light travels in waves, research B indicates light travels as particles... but how can it be that both are correct?

Originally Posted by vnx205

Have you read these?

https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

Interesting. But none of the points really address what I consider to be the main holes in the global warming argument. For example - this eon is the first in 500M years that the earth has had ice caps at the poles... thus a lack of ice is a planetary normality, not an abnormality - ie - the earth is typically a much warmer environment. And depending what geological CO2 modelling you place faith in levels have been estimated to be as high as 4000PPM only 200M years ago during the Jurassic period. CO2 has been trending downward ever since the dinosaurs came undone, but if this trajectory was to continue (ie - dip below 100-200PPM) without check plant/flora would effectively lose the ability to photosynthesise... so you're damned if it gets too high, damned if it gets too low.

I'm not sure what my point is. I guess it's that nothing is as simple as it seems, nor are our sciences or general intelligences at a point of enlightened study. Humans have 'always' held a narrative of impending disaster, I see global warming as nothing more than the latest chapter of doom, fear and pestilence - fine-tuned to the anxieties of our generation.

But like I said, my mind is not closed. Can you debunk my above skepticisms with unequivocal evidence then i'll take it on board and adjust my position. And it'll also make the argument 'for' global warming stronger.

Originally Posted by SlowRide

Research always finds what it's looking for. For example - research A indicates light travels in waves, research B indicates light travels as particles... but how can it be that both are correct?

Very off topic perhaps, but since you asked you could do worse than read Richard Feynman's lectures on such things. Read chapter 37, he shows light is neither wave nor particle as understood by common experience.

Slowride....it has all been done.

.my internet sucks

Originally Posted by ramblingboy42

it has been turned into a climate change thread by stirrers.

that you "thought" you were going to see cattle born a glacier is just utter rubbish and is also pure stirring.

I put it up because it is incredibly informative in showing size comparisons of the ice to that of Manhattan as it breaks up and moves.

Well that's just ridiculous, there's no cattle up there. I was thinking reindeer? I didn't know glaciers had calves.

and that remains one of this forums biggest problems......people commenting without knowledge.

Climate change is Real, I've personally witnessed it 1st hand.
Living in Victoria we have a changing climate every day, one day the climate is warm, then the next day it can be cold