Ice Cap Growing: Yep, It's "Climate Change."

Please, feel free to debate me with facts if you would like.

Yes, you're right. I shouldn't stoop low and change your name to "Butt." The immaturity on this forum rubs off on me once in awhile.

I do really like your running/global warming analogy. But in this case your hypothetical runner can't up his mileage for 17 years.

Now, despite the fact that there has been no global warming for about 17 years, and despite the fact that the arctic icecaps have been growing rather than disappearing as Al Gore--who allegedly based his plainly uneducated views on man-made global warming on some of the more gullible or financially motivated "scientists," I'm not saying that anyone is necessarily wrong that over the long haul the planet is warming. It has done the same thing for millions of years, followed by a cold period, a relatively stable period, and then another warming trend. What I am saying is that neither you nor anyone alive KNOWS that cars, cow farts, and people breathing are accelerating the alleged warming. It's just plain ignorant for anyone to say that any of these three carbon-producing sources have even a tiny effect compared to the sun and powerful natural planetary weather cycles. But if you and others persist in believing in so-called man-made climate change, keep living the dream, my friend. And yes, I'll call you friend and apologize once more for the "Butt" comment. That was hypocritical of me. I assume we're all runners on this forum--or most of us--and I have to respect my fellow runners.

Oh, and what the heck is "FRB"? Federal Reserve Board? I can't figure out what you're talking about, "But."

This is a graph of Arctic sea ice extent for the satellite observation era showing the maximum reached in winter (March) and the minimum reached (September):

http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/reportcard/images-ocean/si-fig20-big.jpg

The essence of the article linked in the OP is that 2014 is higher than 2012 which is a true statement. (Note that 2014 is expected to wind up about the same as 2013.) Some might consider the longer term trend to be the more relevant measure.

Hey, Shawn? You concluded the OP by saying, "I'm out." That means that you're done with a particular thread, and won't be posting in it again.

Yet you've made several more posts in this thread.

In future, please be as good as your word. And for now, please make no more posts in this thread. Let the rest of us, as you say, "run with it."

Thanks so much!

Thanks for including the link to the Daily Mail, so we knew right up front you're either a troll or an idiot.

Libtards Explained wrote:

This the problem that I have with libtards. It is the play book of Saul Alinsky.......how to win a discussion/debate/argument - ....

(insane, barely coherent ramblings.....)

"Saul Alinsky" ?!?! WTF in God's name is wrong with you right wingers? The fact that you would bring up that dude's name, someone I know little to nothing about, on a Global Warming thread is all we need to know that you are seriously F'd in the head.

How on earth did Alinsky become, like Al Gore, some sort of ultimate liberal bogeyman for you right wingers? (But then you guys ALSO turn around and tell people to read his works, and the Tea Party has done this a lot. Make up your minds!) All because he had (just looked this up) some early connections to the communist party and because he was a community organizer like Obama? So now you are convinced every democrat is well versed in his "playbook....to win a debate" ?? Who told you this idiotic nonsense, Glenn Beck? Rush Limbaugh? Bill O'Reilly? What a good little sheep you are, believing and regurgitating their insane nonsense.

Oy vey.

So let's get back to the conservative arguments against human influenced global warming:

1) Al Gore

. AL FREAKING GORE believes it!!! Therefore it HAS to be wrong.

2) Saul Alinsky.

Sneaky commie. Every liberal knows his devious playbook. Scientists are using it to try and convince us that global warming is real. Read "Rules for Radicals." You'll see....the scientific argument for global warming is really just a con job inspired by Alinsky.

3) Rev Wright. Remember him?? Yup, thought so. Whose chickens are coming to roost now?

4) It's a hoax!

Every time experts are convinced of something I don't like, I am sure it is a conspiracy. It always is.

5) Science is sometimes wrong.

So....I bet this is one of those times *because*.... the conclusions of science in this case go against my ideology and politics (see above).

Case closed!

Chewbacca wrote:

Thanks for including the link to the Daily Mail, so we knew right up front you're either a troll or an idiot.

Agreed

asef wrote:

Hey, Shawn? You concluded the OP by saying, "I'm out." That means that you're done with a particular thread, and won't be posting in it again.

Yet you've made several more posts in this thread.

In future, please be as good as your word. And for now, please make no more posts in this thread. Let the rest of us, as you say, "run with it."

Thanks so much!

Sometimes I can't resist. Especially when people ask me a question. It's so hard to resist the urge to attempt educating the ignorant. You're right, though.

Citizen Runner wrote:

This is a graph of Arctic sea ice extent for the satellite observation era showing the maximum reached in winter (March) and the minimum reached (September):

http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/reportcard/images-ocean/si-fig20-big.jpg

The essence of the article linked in the OP is that 2014 is higher than 2012 which is a true statement. (Note that 2014 is expected to wind up about the same as 2013.) Some might consider the longer term trend to be the more relevant measure.

Nicely understated.

Apparently they found the missing heat. Not sure you can believe Accuweather.

http://www.accuweather.com/en/home-garden-articles/earth-you/has-earths-missing-heat-been-f/32731975

Breathe in breathe out wrote:

Chewbacca wrote:

Thanks for including the link to the Daily Mail, so we knew right up front you're either a troll or an idiot.

Agreed

Let's face it, the Daily Mail is written for gullible idiots.

I appreciate you recognizing your momentary immaturity and accept your apology. Sorry that I called you dumb earlier as well.

Well I don't want to force the metaphor too much, because it gets to the point of being meaningless, but the 17 year span you're talking about could be construed as a month or two in the year that he was raising his mileage from 40 to 60 where he stayed at 53 miles a week. Still far above 40, but if you only looked at those two months, you'd think that he was flatlining. 17 years, in the scheme of a 4.6 billion year old Earth, is nothing.

97% of scientists is not "the more gullible or financially motivated 'scientists.'" That's practically everyone in the world who's knowledgeable in that area of science. That's thousands of people. I keep doing running analogies, but how would you feel if nearly everyone in running understood that 80 miles a week with speedwork was higher quality training than 20 miles of jogging and then random members of the public told you you were crazy and that clearly 20 miles of jogging made you faster? It's a very imperfect metaphor, but the meaning is this: experts in each community, be it science or running, know more than members of the public, and if nearly every expert thinks something is true, it almost certainly is.

FRB is FastRunningBlog. I've seen you comment on some high schoolers on this site so I assume that it's the same Shawn H.

Stud Pardeee wrote:

You Global Warming Alarmists sound more and more pathetic. There has NOT been any warming since 1998.

There's these things called 'oceans'. You should google it.

Breathe in breathe out wrote:

Chewbacca wrote:

Thanks for including the link to the Daily Mail, so we knew right up front you're either a troll or an idiot.

Agreed

^^ This ^^ If you'd like a little more 'news' from the daily mail, here you go:

The libtards pick time spans that suit their agenda and viciously attack those who show that shorter and longer spans show different trends. I don't understand why OP bothers to treat them as adults.

The temperature never changes wrote:

You got it revered BMR. The Daily Mail is your source for true science?

The article references NASA, the Danish Meteorological Institute, and Georgia Tech's Dr. Judith Curry. Is that not scientific enough for you?

Here's a presentation of the Arctic sea ice extent from 1999 to early this year. Guess what? Sea ice varies from year to year.

observer of hoaxers wrote:

The libtards pick time spans that suit their agenda and viciously attack those who show that shorter and longer spans show different trends. I don't understand why OP bothers to treat them as adults.

Libtards are all socialists.

But... wrote:

FRB is FastRunningBlog. I've seen you comment on some high schoolers on this site so I assume that it's the same Shawn H.

Oh, YES! You are right! That IS me. Conner Mantz is a Utah high school runner, just as I once was, and he is one of the best high schoolers in the nation. I didn't recognize "FRB" because I don't think of it that way. I just have it saved under "Conner Mantz" in my "Favorites." I really enjoy reading his workout and race reports. His training is so much smarter than ours was back in the 70s, and he's got a much more mature attitude about training than I ever had. Anyway, this has nothing to do with "Climate Change," but I thought I'd acknowledge your correct assumption. Ok now, I think I really am "out" of this thread now. There are plenty of people on both sides of the issue, and I'm enjoying reading what I wrought. Later, "But," and may we meet again on a different thread.