"Ooops! New NASA study: Antarctica isn’t losing ice mass after all !"

[cvfd1399 0]

Yes and what are you talking about?

[kallend 1,679]

News from Greenland:

www.sciencemag.org/content/early/2015/11/11/science.aac7111

(Original, peer reviewed article).

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 18]

kallend

News from Greenland:

www.sciencemag.org/content/early/2015/11/11/science.aac7111

(Original, peer reviewed article).

first off
you don't care if a paper is peer reviewed if you don't agree with the conclusion
So a posting from you referencing being peer reviewed is worthless at any point you use it

second

So?

glaciers melt!

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kallend 1,679]

rushmc

***
News from Greenland:

www.sciencemag.org/content/early/2015/11/11/science.aac7111

(Original, peer reviewed article).

first off
you don't care if a paper is peer reviewed if you don't agree with the conclusion
So a posting from you referencing being peer reviewed is worthless at any point you use it

second

So?

glaciers melt!

It may come as news to you, but wattsupwiththat is not peer reviewed.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 18]

kallend

******
News from Greenland:

www.sciencemag.org/content/early/2015/11/11/science.aac7111

(Original, peer reviewed article).

first off
you don't care if a paper is peer reviewed if you don't agree with the conclusion
So a posting from you referencing being peer reviewed is worthless at any point you use it

second

So?

glaciers melt!

It may come as news to you, but wattsupwiththat is not peer reviewed.

Hmmm
Not there is a redirect if ever there was one

but
I never said it was

It has however, linked to peer reviewed papers that you off handily dismissed (the peer reviewed paper, not wattsupwiththat)

Which, is the point of my previous post

Nice to see you are not refuting the fact that glaciers melt
That is a start

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[SkyDekker 1,153]

cvfd1399

That was a long time ago the 70's right? Was it still ok to call people niggers back then too? Jesus Christ times change. It is not ok to call people coonasses anymore.

And the PC crowd whines again. Grow some balls, be a man and stop feeling so sorry for yourself. The pussyfication of America for all to see.

Oh, sorry, is that only when other people are upset? Oops.

[cvfd1399 0]

SkyDekker

***That was a long time ago the 70's right? Was it still ok to call people niggers back then too? Jesus Christ times change. It is not ok to call people coonasses anymore.

And the PC crowd whines again. Grow some balls, be a man and stop feeling so sorry for yourself. The pussyfication of America for all to see.

Oh, sorry, is that only when other people are upset? Oops.

So you are ok with racism and ethnic slurs? Wow i figured you for someone else then.

[rushmc 18]

cvfd1399

******That was a long time ago the 70's right? Was it still ok to call people niggers back then too? Jesus Christ times change. It is not ok to call people coonasses anymore.

And the PC crowd whines again. Grow some balls, be a man and stop feeling so sorry for yourself. The pussyfication of America for all to see.

Oh, sorry, is that only when other people are upset? Oops.

So you are ok with racism and ethnic slurs? Wow i figured you for someone else then.

HEY!!!!

you should know by now the democrats and African Americans are allowed to make racists comments and the such

Conservative African Americans and republicans in general are not allowed under ANY circumstances.


Sheesh

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[SkyDekker 1,153]

cvfd1399

******That was a long time ago the 70's right? Was it still ok to call people niggers back then too? Jesus Christ times change. It is not ok to call people coonasses anymore.

And the PC crowd whines again. Grow some balls, be a man and stop feeling so sorry for yourself. The pussyfication of America for all to see.

Oh, sorry, is that only when other people are upset? Oops.

So you are ok with racism and ethnic slurs? Wow i figured you for someone else then.

So you think everybody should be politically correct. Wow, I figured you for someone else then.

[cvfd1399 0]

I can't help it if you and Amazon think calling someone an "n" word is not ok to say but less non common ethnic slurs like coonass and other regional ones are ok. That's what's going on here.

Selective racism followed by an attempt to cover ones ass by changing the subject, or calling someone a pussy like you did.

[SkyDekker 1,153]

cvfd1399

I can't help it if you and Amazon think calling someone an "n" word is not ok to say but less non common ethnic slurs like coonass and other regional ones are ok. That's what's going on here.

Selective racism followed by an attempt to cover ones ass by changing the subject, or calling someone a pussy like you did.

I can't help it that you are really selective in what you consider political correctness.

When you are offended people are rude, when others get offended it is due to political correctness.

[BIGUN 1,106]

Bill,

I'm just curious as to what went wrong in this thread?

Numerous personal attacks, flaming, thread-drifting (from glaciers to Louisiana), etc.

What was at one time a great venue for fellow skydivers to engage in discourse about politics, science, theology, etc. has basically become a goat-spitting contest.

I used to learn so much on here or at least get some direction to do my own research and in more than one case have changed my position on an issue. My posting on here has slowed to a perhaps one to two week scenario and is quickly deteriorating because I know in 3 threads its all going to turn to shit. Am I guilty? On a couple of occasions - yes. But, the time has come to to change this path of destruction.

May I suggest that the moderators discuss with Meso & HH the possibility of wiping out an entire thread and leave a placeholder that says, "Thread Deleted Due to Rule Infringement"

Perhaps if people get tired of spending their time typing out goat-spitting only for it to be wiped out in its entirety... they'll stay on subject.

Food for thought.

Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.

[cvfd1399 0]

It started going south for me when I was trying to ask if we knew for sure if all this was man made, natural, a combination of both, or what, and the head moderator started shit with someone else in his reply to me.

ME

Quote

We know it's changing. Can we get that out of the way please.

BILLVON

Quote

That's a fight you'll have to have with RushMC. At every opportunity he denies the data that shows us that the climate is changing.

[christelsabine 1]

cvfd1399

It started going south for me when I was trying to ask if we knew for sure if all this was man made, natural, a combination of both, or what, and the head moderator started shit with someone else in his reply to me.

ME

Quote

We know it's changing. Can we get that out of the way please.

BILLVON
***
That's a fight you'll have to have with RushMC. At every opportunity he denies the data that shows us that the climate is changing.

Jeez, what are you? A little boy looking for answers in life?

This is a SD site, not created to provide the answer to all your questions. Do your own research, man!

If you don't like the offered links/replies, no matter from which side, go and find your own.

dudeist skydiver # 3105

[cvfd1399 0]

Thanks for the constructive comments. I have a hundred things I would like to say to you about how wrong you are with your statement, your tone, and many other things but I am taking the high road. Ignore my posts from now on thanks.

[billvon 2,473]

>I'm just curious as to what went wrong in this thread?

People's political beliefs were threatened; they reacted as they often do here.

>But, the time has come to to change this path of destruction.

>May I suggest that the moderators discuss with Meso & HH the possibility of
>wiping out an entire thread and leave a placeholder that says, "Thread Deleted
>Due to Rule Infringement"

Problem is that many posters are now quite good at going right up to the edge but not beyond it. We tried an experiment (the "on topic" thread) that has a higher level of moderation, so that the usual one-liners and borderline attacks get deleted, as does any significant topic drift. That's worked for the few threads it has been used for.

A second option is to create a new forum (call it "the pit" or something) where the threads go once there are, say, three non-content threads in a row. Willem didn't want to maintain a forum just for that sort of crap and I can see his point there.

A third option is to just moderate more heavily but honestly we just don't have the manpower to do that well, and most of the mods are (rightly) concentrating on the forums that matter more.

However I will bring your suggestion up with the rest of the mods and see if they have any thoughts on it.

[turtlespeed 212]

So, does that mean the sience is settled now?

it the world going to be uninhabitable where we all die out now?

How soon will we all start being murdered by the climate.

How many have already died, SPECIFICALLY, from AGW, or climate change, or whatever they want to call it now.

What is the number proven to be caused by man made global warming.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[SkyDekker 1,153]

Quote

How many have already died, SPECIFICALLY, from AGW, or climate change, or whatever they want to call it now

How many have specifically died from smoking?

If that is an impossible questions to answer, does that mean the science regarding the health effects of smoking is not settled?

[turtlespeed 212]

SkyDekker

Quote

How many have already died, SPECIFICALLY, from AGW, or climate change, or whatever they want to call it now

How many have specifically died from smoking?

If that is an impossible questions to answer, does that mean the science regarding the health effects of smoking is not settled?

Actually, with some certainty, one can extrapolate a number that is reasonable. Obviously some assumptions would have to be made.

Which do you think would be more directly involved?

Which one, smoking, or climate change, is responsible for more deaths directly attributed to their respective causes?

How much capital and funding do you think was spent on them respectively?

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[SkyDekker 1,153]

Quote

Actually, with some certainty, one can extrapolate a number that is reasonable. Obviously some assumptions would have to be made.

Assumptions? So the science isn't settled and you cannot get to a number of people whom have died, SPECIFICALLY, from smoking?

Quote

Which one, smoking, or climate change, is responsible for more deaths directly attributed to their respective causes?

For now smoking, by far!

If we continue to grow and not care about our impact, that will change. Eventually.

[BIGUN 1,106]

http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=4769955#4769955

Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.

[billvon 2,473]

>So, does that mean the sience is settled now?

The basic science is settled now, yes. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. We are significantly increasing its concentration. A higher concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere will retain more heat. That science is supported by at least 97% of the climate scientists out there, and is as settled as science gets.

That doesn't mean ALL science is settled, of course. The role of cloud formation, for example, is still poorly understood. Daytime cloud formation increases albedo and lowers total energy absorbed; nighttime cloud formation reduces heat loss. Which will dominate in a warmer world? If more daytime clouds form, then we will see less warming than we would expect given the other forcings. If more nighttime clouds form, we will see more warming than we would expect given the other forcings. But that does not speak to the question "are we causing the planet to warm?" We already know we are. It speaks to the question "how rapidly will temperatures increase?" And that work will continue.

>How soon will we all start being murdered by the climate.

We are already. We lose about 400,000 a year to the effects of climate change.

http://daraint.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/CVM2ndEd-FrontMatter.pdf

>What is the number proven to be caused by man made global warming.

Zero, the same number of lung cancer cases proven to be caused by smoking. As you said, with some certainty, one can extrapolate a number that is reasonable. For that number, see above.

[cvfd1399 0]

Yes that is all true. I said(asked)it before the thread got derailed is we don't know what percentage (to my knowledge) of the warming is man made vs natural.

I agree it's warming
I agree man can make it warmer by many medthods

[billvon 2,473]

> I said(asked)it before the thread got derailed is we don't know what percentage (to
>my knowledge) of the warming is man made vs natural.

To repeat a previous post:

========
What's causing the positive forcing we are currently seeing is:
AG CO2 45%
AG CH4 16%
AG CFC 8%
AG N2O 5%
AG tropospheric ozone 13%
Sun output changes 13%
=======

That means that ~87% of the warming we are seeing is manmade.

[turtlespeed 212]

billvon

>So, does that mean the sience is settled now?

The basic science is settled now, yes. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. We are significantly increasing its concentration. A higher concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere will retain more heat. That science is supported by at least 97% of the climate scientists out there, and is as settled as science gets.

That doesn't mean ALL science is settled, of course. The role of cloud formation, for example, is still poorly understood. Daytime cloud formation increases albedo and lowers total energy absorbed; nighttime cloud formation reduces heat loss. Which will dominate in a warmer world? If more daytime clouds form, then we will see less warming than we would expect given the other forcings. If more nighttime clouds form, we will see more warming than we would expect given the other forcings. But that does not speak to the question "are we causing the planet to warm?" We already know we are. It speaks to the question "how rapidly will temperatures increase?" And that work will continue.

>How soon will we all start being murdered by the climate.

We are already. We lose about 400,000 a year to the effects of climate change.

http://daraint.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/CVM2ndEd-FrontMatter.pdf

>What is the number proven to be caused by man made global warming.

Zero, the same number of lung cancer cases proven to be caused by smoking. As you said, with some certainty, one can extrapolate a number that is reasonable. For that number, see above.

The 400k number takes a LOT of assumptions into play.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun