Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 17 Apr '10 16:43 / 1 edit
    http://www.livescience.com/environment/070830_gw_quakes.html

    I kid you not. They are now blaming earthquakes and volcanos on global warming. How? Apparently they are blaming retreating ice sheets as reducing pressure on the earths crust thus prompting increased volcanic acitivity. In addition, the increased water pressure in the oversized oceans can prompt increased pressure on fault line within the earths crust in our oceans. LMAO!!

    I remember a day when I started to buy into the whole man made global warming idea, but now it has become just a joke.
  2. 17 Apr '10 17:44
    Uhh, you do know that Nature is a scientific journal, scrutinized through peer review, with research behind it, right? I'm sure the journal would be elated to hear your refutation, provided it's more than just rhetoric.
  3. 18 Apr '10 01:25
    Originally posted by Beyer
    Uhh, you do know that Nature is a scientific journal, scrutinized through peer review, with research behind it, right? I'm sure the journal would be elated to hear your refutation, provided it's more than just rhetoric.
    My my, I musn't question them if it comes from a scientific journal. I have no idea what I was thinking. Thanks friend, I almost wound up on a burning stake after facing a Dawkins inquisition.
  4. 18 Apr '10 02:16
    Originally posted by whodey
    My my, I musn't question them if it comes from a scientific journal. I have no idea what I was thinking. Thanks friend, I almost wound up on a burning stake after facing a Dawkins inquisition.
    Let me rephrase.

    I would be elated to hear your refutation, provided it's more than just rhetoric.
  5. 18 Apr '10 02:38
    Originally posted by Beyer
    Let me rephrase.

    I would be elated to hear your refutation, provided it's more than just rhetoric.
    I thinking that Iceland should pave the entire volcanic crater to "weigh down" the earths crust since the ice no longer can prevent eruptions. Either that, or move all the "over weight" Icelanders to the crater to live and then see if that helps.
  6. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    18 Apr '10 02:47
    Originally posted by whodey
    I thinking that Iceland should pave the entire volcanic crater to "weigh down" the earths crust since the ice no longer can prevent eruptions. Either that, or move all the "over weight" Icelanders to the crater to live and then see if that helps.
    What are the scientific grounds you are citing for your assertion that the article in Nature is "just a joke"?
  7. 18 Apr '10 03:00 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by FMF
    What are the scientific grounds you are citing for your assertion that the article in Nature is "just a joke"?
    It appears to be all speculation to me. Every time you turn your head and a disaster occurs you hear people blaming global warming and they just love to use scientific theories to give them an air of credibility. It started with hurricanes, which have been subdued lately, and now this? Methinks the boy called wolf once to many times.
  8. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    18 Apr '10 03:09
    Originally posted by whodey
    It appears to be all speculation to me. Every time you turn your head and a disaster occurs you hear people blaming global warming and they just love to use scientific theories to give them an air of credibility. It started with hurricanes, which have been subdued lately, and now this? Methinks the boy called wolf once to many times.
    What is the science behind your refutation? In fact, WHAT is the refutation exactly? You start a a thread on an international forum on a scientific topic and all you've got is "it's just a joke"? Even if it is scientific "speculation", as you say it appears to be to you, why would this be "just a joke"?
  9. 18 Apr '10 03:11
    Originally posted by whodey
    I thinking that Iceland should pave the entire volcanic crater to "weigh down" the earths crust since the ice no longer can prevent eruptions. Either that, or move all the "over weight" Icelanders to the crater to live and then see if that helps.
    Losing Weight

    According to the new report, Greenland lost an estimated 1,500 gigatons (one gigaton is equal to 1 billion tons) of ice from the year 2000 to 2008. "That is at the upper end of recent estimates of Greenland mass loss using various other methods," van den Broeke told SPIEGEL ONLINE. Between 2006 and 2008, the loss in weight totaled 273 gigatons per year, he said.

    http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,661192,00.html
  10. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    18 Apr '10 03:16
    Originally posted by Beyer
    According to the new report, Greenland lost an estimated 1,500 gigatons (one gigaton is equal to 1 billion tons) of ice from the year 2000 to 2008.
    Presumably whodey doesn't think this has happened because it would be "just a joke" if it had.
  11. 18 Apr '10 03:58
    Originally posted by FMF
    Presumably whodey doesn't think this has happened because it would be "just a joke" if it had.
    Are you saying that global warming caused the volcano in Iceland to errupt?
  12. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    18 Apr '10 04:25
    Originally posted by whodey
    Are you saying that global warming caused the volcano in Iceland to errupt?
    You kicked this thread off with http://www.livescience.com/environment/070830_gw_quakes.html

    What is your scientific refutation of it (i.e. why is it "just a joke" ) ?
  13. 18 Apr '10 04:28 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by FMF
    You kicked this thread off with http://www.livescience.com/environment/070830_gw_quakes.html

    What is your scientific refutation of it (i.e. why is it "just a joke" ) ?
    But its just a theory, not proof. So do you buy into it? You know, not everything that appears in science magazines are actually true, especially with such a policially charged topic. Such policially charged topics should be treated with great trepidation in terms of motive.
  14. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    18 Apr '10 04:30
    Originally posted by whodey
    But its just a theory, not proof. So do you buy into it? You know, not everything that appears in science magazines are actually true.
    It's a scientific theory. What is your scientific refutation?
  15. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    18 Apr '10 04:32
    Originally posted by whodey
    Such policially charged topics should be treated with great trepidation in terms of motive.
    Greenland lost an estimated 1,500,000,000,000 tons of ice between 2000 and 2008. Is that a "policially charged" fact? Or do you think that the ice is still there?