Story Comments
Posted by: wtagg 1 year, 7 months ago
This page is a permanent archive of the comment below and its replies.
To view this comment in the context of the full discussion for the story, use this link.
-
Neutral
wtagg1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Using one glacier is wrong as evidence. Exit Glacier and Portage Glacier are demonstratively retreating. Does that mean we are experiencing global warming? No. Just as your example of a nameless pilot not being able to land on a nameless glacier (you really haven't done very well with presenting your evidence) does not provide evidence that global warming isn't occurring.
We need to examine all glaciers in context. That not only includes the percentage of advancing, stagnating, or retreating glaciers, it also needs to include the rate of advance or decay.
Reply-
Neutral
airglide1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Alright
http://www.iceagenow.com/List_of_Expanding_Glac...
http://freestudents.blogspot.com/2007/04/everyt...
Even one from several years ago
http://cei.org/gencon/019,03669.cfm
Reply-
Neutral
capn_caveman1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I think iceagenow needs to update their list of expanding glaciers. Some of the listed glaciers on that site are NOT expanding, but are actually retreating. But that doesn't matter for people who are willing to swallow the lie without questions.
Reply -
Neutral
wtagg1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I am not sure that a blog constitutes empirical evidence. You would do better to cite actual studies that use the entire world as base for gathering evidence.
The iceagenow site states that we are on the verge of an ice age because the road to the sun open late one year. Are you stating that this is evidence to believe global warming isn't occurring? That is worthless as evidence, just as opening road to the sun early one year would to proof that global warming does exist. If you can demonstrate that the majority of glaciers in Glacier National Park are advancing, you might have some (and a very small "some") evidence that global warming is not taking place. Unfortunately, I believe Glacier National Park is not going to be very fruitful to you as being the bearer of that evidence.
Yes, there will be glaciers that are advancing. Again, you need to show that the majority of the world's glaciers are advancing.
Reply-
Neutral
airglide1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
What troubles you most? A failure in your "empirical" evidence or the possibility that it has a failure in its' foundation? When the facts change you are permitted to change your mind.
Those who don't learn from history are destined to make its' mistakes. Examples. There are more but here are two. Spotted owls needed old growth forest so we destroyed Oregon's economy to do it. It is an imported bird, and nests on transformers in town were not deterrents. Freon was destroying the ozone layer so we spent billions removing it. A number of years later the holes in the ozone were larger than ever, but it didn't matter. We had done something.
IF we replace hydrocarbons with hydrogen, we will cause global warming because water vapor is the most significant factor. We need to reduce pollution. We don't need to do something hastily because the facts aren't all in.
Reply-
Neutral
wtagg1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
My comment is directed at your citation of a blog as a fact source. Because someone has an opinion, which is well within their right to have, it doesn't make it a fact. Cite the actual studies that you believe supports your opinion. An alleged pilot who allegedly stated that he can no longer allegedly land on an unknown glacier is not empirical evidence, which I believe you don't understand the definition of.
You complain of how evidence is gathered and rushing to judgment, both are benchmarks that you are having issues with reaching.
"We need to reduce pollution. We don't need to do something hastily because the facts aren't all in."
This part of your comment does seem worthy to repeat.
Reply -
Neutral
Wolfie20071 year, 7 months ago
-
Neutral
PapaWolf1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
DDT: http://www.3dchem.com/molecules.asp?ID=90
"DDT seemed to be the ideal insecticideit is cheap and of relatively low toxicity to mammals (oral LD50 is 300 to 500 mg/kg). However, problems related to extensive use of DDT began to appear in the late 1940s. Many species of insects developed resistance to DDT, and DDT was also discovered to have a high toxicity toward fish.
(continued)
Reply -
Neutral
PapaWolf1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"The chemical stability of DDT and its fat solubility compounded the problem. DDT is not metabolized very rapidly by animals; instead, it is deposited and stored in the fatty tissues. The biological half-life of DDT is about eight years; that is, it takes about eight years for an animal to metabolize half of the amount it assimilates. If ingestion continues at a steady rate, DDT builds up within the animal over time.
"The use of DDT was banned in the United States in 1973, although it is still in use in some other parts of the world. The buildup of DDT in natural waters is a reversible process: the EPA reported a 90% reduction of DDT in Lake Michigan fish by 1978 as a result of the ban.
1st: how can a US ban affect the rest of the world, especially since "it is still in use in some other parts of the world"?
2nd: relatively low toxicity, but it is stored in the body bringing ingested levels above toxic over time.
Reply -
Neutral
PapaWolf1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You may want to look at http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/tfacts35.html, too. The CDC says:
"High levels of DDT can affect the nervous system causing excitability, tremors and seizures.
So you'd rather have seizures than find another, less toxic way to control mosquitoes.
Reply
-
-
-
Neutral
capn_caveman1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Here's what you need to know about the iceagenow site. I spent about 10 minutes researching some of the glaciers they have listed as advancing and iceagenow is full of crap. They list Helm glacier in Canada as a retreating glacier. In fact, Helm glacier may be a poster child for the state of retreating glaciers across the globe.
Please read:
http://cgip.wetpaint.com/page/Helm Glacier?t=anon
That is one of many fallacies on the site and just another reason why it should not be trusted as a resource.
Reply -
-
-
-
Neutral
Isoparm1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You are absolutely right. It's about NET loss, or net gain of TOTAL ice mass over time, that determines change in heat balance. This is not that hard to understand. If some people would just take a cherry-picking minute to think about it, they should see it.
Reply-
-
Neutral
amazed1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
just as it shouldn't be hard to understand that, in a planet the age of the earth (billions of years) that has had warm periods and ice ages throughout them, that 30 years is NOT over time. That's not even a blink of an eye.
Now, once again, do I think that we should pollute with impunity? Of course not. Do I think we should rush into catastrophic measures to achieve incremental measurements? Absolutely not.
We rushed into MTBE -- and within the first year, it was shown to be highly toxic and leaching into and contaminating ground water, added cost and reduced the efficiency of gasoline. It took almost 10 years before the gov't finally allowed the oil companies to stop using it.
Reply-
Neutral
amazed1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
cont'd
Now, we're onto ethanol. It takes about .9 gallons of fossil fuel to produce a gallon of ethanol. Ethanol has nowhere near the BTU's (energy) of gasoline, so you need more to go the same distance. It has already imcreased the cost of all foods and third world countries are starving because they no longer can afford to buy corn or grain (wheat having gone up ridiculously because farmers can make way more growing corn for fuel than wheat for food). In addition to these wonderful features of ethanol, ethanol tends to eat away synthetic parts of engines, increasing wear and tear and repair costs and decreasing the overall life of your engine. Yet, anyone who questions the wisdom is a knuckle-dragging, evolution-denying, all around terrible and ignorant person who wants to destroy the earth.
There are few who object to reasonable measures to clean up the planet, it is the unreasonable and unfeasible to which we object.
Reply-
Neutral
Ratskii1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I question your stats. I agree that it is stupid to use corn, soybeans or good land to make ethanol. I think it actually costs about 50% more energy than it produces. However if you make ethanol from switchgrass or canola grown on marginal land with little or no use of cultivation, then ethanol is produced with a substantial gain of energy.
Reply
-
-
-
-
loading ...
People Who Liked This Comment (6)
Aidenag
djn3nunez3
juvel
bluetexasvalley
Isoparm
roymjohnsonPeople Who Didn't Like This Comment (0)
No one voted this comment negatively.
Post Reply
You are not signed in to Propeller.com. Please sign in to post a reply.