antarctic ice melt now irreversible scientists say


But I still couldn't put the question out of my mind. The figures that Bellamy cited must have come from somewhere. I emailed him to ask for his source. After several requests, he replied to me at the end of last week. The data, he said, came from a website called www.iceagenow.com. Iceagenow was constructed by a man called Robert W Felix to promote his self-published book about "the coming ice age". It claims that sea levels are falling, not rising; that the Asian tsunami was caused by the "ice age cycle"; and that "underwater volcanic activity - not human activity - is heating the seas".

Is Felix a climatologist, a volcanologist or an oceanographer? Er, none of the above. His biography describes him as a "former architect". His website is so bonkers that I thought at first it was a spoof. Sadly, he appears to believe what he says. But there, indeed, was all the material that Bellamy cited in his letter, including the figures - or something resembling the figures - he quoted. "Since 1980, there has been an advance of more than 55% of the 625 mountain glaciers under observation by the World Glacier Monitoring group in Zurich." The source, which Bellamy also cited in his email to me, was given as "the latest issue of 21st Century Science and Technology".

They are constantly quoted as evidence that man-made climate change is not happening. But where did they come from? Singer cites half a source: "A paper published in Science in 1989." Well, the paper might be 16 years old, but at least, and at last, there is one. Surely?

I went through every edition of Science published in 1989, both manually and electronically. Not only did it contain nothing resembling those figures, throughout that year there was no paper published in this journal about glacial advance or retreat.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2005/may/10/environment.columnists



i should write a book for climate change skeptics. would sell like crazy in the US. the information i cite wouldnt matter. people would believe it because they want to believe it. maybe exxon would even sponsor me through some proxy org. though, the same could be said for most climate change proponents.
 
Last edited:


if you dont believe numbers, then just watch them disappear before your eyes.
 
IF you watched one of the recent rogan experience they talked about climate change. starts really getting into it at about 32 min. Very interesting


Interesting how he points out that the times of human expansion and wealth building and the so called "good times" are during periods of global warming and the times that were hard and where human population shrank was during global cooling.

Out of the two, cooling and warming, warming is the better choice. I'm not keen on dirty air and water and rising ocean levels but global cooling would be MUCH worse.
 
Interesting how he points out that the times of human expansion and wealth building and the so called "good times" are during periods of global warming and the times that were hard and where human population shrank was during global cooling.

Out of the two, cooling and warming, warming is the better choice. I'm not keen on dirty air and water and rising ocean levels but global cooling would be MUCH worse.
I'm not sure how much credence you really want to give Randall Carlson...
He's not a scientist, he's a New Ager who believes in Atlantis as a technologically advanced society and that sort of crap. He's the exact sort of guy who Rogan would take advice from... i.e. he is a nutter.
 
I'm not sure how much credence you really want to give Randall Carlson...
He's not a scientist, he's a New Ager who believes in Atlantis as a technologically advanced society and that sort of crap. He's the exact sort of guy who Rogan would take advice from... i.e. he is a nutter.

He makes a strong case. you should listen to him then explain why what he is saying would be wrong. I don't give a shit that he is interested in finding Atlantis.
 
10325604_484137988384143_2372546001425247326_n.jpg

Good thing that the antarctic sea ice is irrelevant. The glaciers aren't in the sea, they are on land.

Ice melts on land and water goes where?
 
On the Joe Rogan podcast Shane (editor in chief of Vice) said that Greenland? is done. It's a wrap, only a matter of time (according to the scientists that he's spoken to) before it is swamped.

Also and you can google this yourself, parts of Miami are already swamped during high tides AND full moons. We'll just have to see what we'll see..
 
He makes a strong case. you should listen to him then explain why what he is saying would be wrong. I don't give a shit that he is interested in finding Atlantis.
Well, what is being reported that he said is false. That obviates the possibility that he's making a strong case.
On top of that he's crazy.
 
Back
Top