Guess what, I never asked you to bend over or even used a single ad hominem, unlike you. And if you keep rejecting out of hand the scientific claims of the importance of glaciers to the earth's entire ecosystem, I am done with this thread. Except for some very interesting scientific *information* and *links* provided by "the bunch", I don't see that you can give me any reliable *information* of any kind. As you said, this is CFI (Center for Inquiry), before you belittled it as an insignificant site, which shows your fundamental ignorance of it's importance. As they say "ignorance is bliss". Be well.DarronS - one person is a complete jerk who repeatedly hurls insultsAgain, hilarious coming from a bunch of guys who want to fine me out of my earnings and then put me in jail. I really owe you guys so much courtesy thereby. Guess what, I am not going to bend over and say please sir may I have another.
Write4U - Guess what, I never asked you to bend over or even used a single ad hominem, unlike you.That is 100% true and I appreciate that, which is why I have not used any harsh language with you. I admit that the use of the words "you guys" was a bit too vague.
And if you keep rejecting out of hand the scientific claims of the importance of glaciers to the earth’s entire ecosystem, I am done with this thread.I have stated very explicitly multiple times that glaciers on the inhabited continents are not essential to human water supplies. If you read that as some kind of global environmental denial then that would indicate a lack of accurate reading.
CFI (Center for Inquiry), before you belittled it as an insignificant siteThis particular thread is read by a handful of people, so, not a target rich environment for a hasbara of the corporate global destruction for profit greed meisters. Overall CFI is a significant organization.
No, as I repeated your blanket statement is meaningless. Assume it is true, what is your conclusion of that fact?Write4U - Guess what, I never asked you to bend over or even used a single ad hominem, unlike you.That is 100% true and I appreciate that, which is why I have not used any harsh language with you. I admit that the use of the words "you guys" was a bit too vague.And if you keep rejecting out of hand the scientific claims of the importance of glaciers to the earth’s entire ecosystem, I am done with this thread.I have stated very explicitly multiple times that glaciers on the inhabited continents are not essential to human water supplies. If you read that as some kind of global environmental denial then that would indicate a lack of accurate reading.
Overall CFI is a significant organization.Does that bring things in perspective?
Write4U - Does that bring things in perspective?Yes, my perspective is that I make one little factual statement, that glaciers on the inhabited continents are not essential to human water supplies, and the folks here go half out of their minds. It seems any factual statements that run counter to their doomsday sky is falling it gonna be all hell we are all gonna die because of global corporate greed narrative is utterly intolerable to their closed little minds. There will be some benefits of climate change, some things that don't matter much, and some great problems. I see all the shades of gray. Folks here seem to only see black.
YES, that is the problem! You take that one little factual statement and think it allows you to make blanket statements about a complex geophysical reality. That cartoon mentality thing. But, what is so offensive about you, besides your apparent arrogant contempt for people and places you don't understand, is your bullshit-based hostility toward valid information and serious accomplished, reliable experts. Thinking that slander based on lies can invalidate the science these people are producing. It hideous ugly thuggery. One self-created fantasy after another - that empower you to dismiss with prejudice, venom and contempt very serious, most valid information and facts. Your inability to absorb and incorporate new information into your world view is another symptom of being wedded to faith-based dogma, be it neocon philosophy/politics, libertarian nuttiness or that crazy obsession with religion and the fantasy that people "know" their god. Or that one religion is better than another. but I digress. gotta runWrite4U - Does that bring things in perspective?Yes, my perspective is that I make one little factual statement,
@ stardusty,
Earlier you said that this thread has few participants. Again, this is true, but ignores the fact that 1242 people have viewed this thread. These viewers are mostly students and a few scientists. The lack of participation lies in the fact that the original factual statement does not reflect the true importance of glaciers (both Polar and Alpine glaciers) and is misleading in that it is true, but incomplete, giving the impression, that this is nothing much to worry about. And that is a false.
If I told you that some frogs show increased signs of genetic damage, but the majority of frogs are fine, that would be a true statement. But it would be misleading, in that it does not say that frogs are an indicator species and an increase of genetic damage is a clear sign of *polluted waters".
But that much more important fact is completely overlooked by the original statement and instead of fostering concern about the causes for this genetic damage, it reduces the statement to a meaningless observation of a curious phenomena.
As to the people who have participated in this and the original thread may be few, the views keep increasing and stands currently at 416 posts and 5320 views (both threads combined).
Let’s try to inform in depth and not post incomplete and misleading statements.
This is why I asked a long time ago if you had thought this through so that you can present a complete description of the importance glaciers play in the global ecosystem, instead of downplaying its possible (probable) devastating effects on all life if they disappear.
Do you see the difference?
Glaciers are not essential. SAY WHAT? Author: citizenschallenge.pm Replies: 312 Views: 4078 Posted: 06-13-2016 02:05 PM Author: Write4U Forum: Science and TechnologyCan “stardusty" defend his skepticalscience.com slander, or admit his bias based error? Replies: 104 Views: 1242 Posted: 3 hours, 16 minutes ago Author: citizenschallenge.pm
CC - You take that one little factual statement and think it allows you to make blanket statements about a complex geophysical realityLike what? How ironic your accusation of blanket statements comes in the form of a blanket statement.
is your bullshit-based hostility toward valid information and serious accomplished, reliable experts.You have not presented any such thing in opposition to my thesis.
but I digress.Indeed, your entire post was just vague rambling accusation.
Write4U - original *factual* statement does not reflect the true importance of glaciers (both Polar and Alpine glaciers) and is misleading in that it is true, but incomplete, giving the impression, that this is nothing much to worry aboutGet a grip, I don't think a "scientist" has such meandering and weak thoughts. I don't lump very different things together, that is not scientific thinking. Alpine glaciers are very different in key respects from polar glaciers. If you cannot handle differentiation along important lines without being mislead by truth that is your problem.
But that much more important fact is completely overlooked by the original statement and instead of fostering concern about the causes for this genetic damage, it reduces the statement to a meaningless observation of a *curious* phenomena.Nope, the issue is that my statement is factually true and a bunch of folks here have posted a mass of bizarre nonsense to claim it is factually false. If people are mislead by my truth that is their problem.
Let’s try to *inform in depth* and not post incomplete and misleading statements.Yeah..my thesis is very explicit. If that is hard to understand for somebody I have no intention of dumbing it down for them.
I asked a long time ago if you had thought this through so that you can present a *complete* description of the *importance* glaciers play in the global ecosystem,It's nearly impossible to get these guys to understand one simple, narrow, and precisely worded factual statement, much less a global analysis. But be my guest, have at it.
instead of downplaying its possible (probable) devastating effects on all life if they disappear.Hyperbole. We are presently in a cold spell. Earth has been much hotter in the past and there were no glaciers and life was in abundance.
instead of downplaying its possible (probable) devastating effects on all life if they disappear.Dissapearing glaciers are not going to "devistate all life".
And if you think your "thesis" is scientifically correct, then you are in fact incorrect. And what was your "thesis again"? I don't recall seeing any thesis from you except a factually incorrect statement.Write4U - original *factual* statement does not reflect the true importance of glaciers (both Polar and Alpine glaciers) and is misleading in that it is true, but incomplete, giving the impression, that this is nothing much to worry aboutGet a grip, I don't think a "scientist" has such meandering and weak thoughts. I don't lump very different things together, that is not scientific thinking. Alpine glaciers are very different in key respects from polar glaciers. If you cannot handle differentiation along important lines without being mislead by truth that is your problem.But that much more important fact is completely overlooked by the original statement and instead of fostering concern about the causes for this genetic damage, it reduces the statement to a meaningless observation of a *curious* phenomena.Nope, the issue is that my statement is factually true and a bunch of folks here have posted a mass of bizarre nonsense to claim it is factually false.
If people are mislead by my truth that is their problem.No, it is your problem, because you are wrong even in that single statement. There are people living in polar regions which get their water from glacial run-off. Did you consider them at all or do these few people not matter?
Let’s try to *inform in depth* and not post incomplete and misleading statements.
Yeah..my thesis is very explicit. If that is hard to understand for somebody I have no intention of dumbing it down for them.What was that thesis again?
What is the thesis statement in the essay? A thesis statement usually appears at the end of the introductory paragraph of a paper and offers a concise summary of the main point or claim of the essay, research paper, etc. The thesis statement is developed, supported, and explained in the course of the paper by means of examples and evidence. Thesis statements help organize and develop arguments, and serve as a signal to readers about the topic of a paper. Reference: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thesis_statementI asked a long time ago if you had thought this through so that you can present a *complete* description of the *importance* glaciers play in the global ecosystem,
It's nearly impossible to get these guys to understand one simple, narrow, and precisely worded factual statement, much less a global analysis. But be my guest, have at it.As I explained "your simple, narrow, and precisely worded factual statement is *false * and *meaningless", if not blatantly misleading by downplaying its possible (probable) devastating effects on all life if they disappear.
Hyperbole. We are presently in a cold spell. Earth has been much hotter in the past and there were no glaciers and life was in abundance. Dissapearing glaciers are not going to "devistate all life".
dusty said: I am also very sorry you are obviously the victim of our educational system failure because you do not know 4th grade geography.This was in reference to the polar ice cap having no landmass and assumes that polar ice is frozen salt water. Apparently you are not familiar with the following facts;
When water freezes (crystallizes), the salt crystals are no longer dissolved (salt ions separated and weakly bonded to the polarized water molecules). If you keep the water frozen long enough, the salt eventually leaches out, leaving you with a block of frozen 'fresh-water' ice. But it takes years.. Would a few 1000 years be sufficient for salt to leach out?
The polar caps, almost fresh. Old sea ice -- very slightly salty (and hard as steel -- icebreakers try to avoid it) young sea ice (e.g., brash) is just about as salty as the seawater it came from.
I will give you a little remedial lesson.If you want to teach me something, you might begin with *learning* to spell the words "misled" (past tense) and "devastating" correctly. p.s. I had my schooling in Holland which shows your conclusion about my education is premature and NOT founded on fact. Not very scientific, but typical, tsk, tsk, tsk.
Hyperbole. We are presently in a cold spell. Earth has been much hotter in the past and there were no glaciers and life was in abundance. Dissapearing glaciers are not going to "devistate all life".I don't think anyone here has actually asserted that "all life" would disappear from Earth. The biosphere and life forms we've gotten used to will certainly be in deep shit, dying out or adapting into different creatures. (Don't forget drying glaciers won't be the only thing humanity and the biosphere will be contending with.) Still, without glaciers vast habitats will change dramatically and not for the better. Without glaciers regional weather patterns will be severely drier and ancient patterns will be disrupted. Can dusty deny that? I myself have said that without glaciers Humanity's life on Earth will descend into a living hell. Nothing about all life disappearing, just the fun stuff all of us depend on. etc. ______________________________________
Exactly, and that was my point about taking a half-truth out of context and build a "thesis" (yet to be posted) that Polar glaciers are of little importance because the No. Pole is just a frozen block of salt water and therefore not used or suitable for human consumption, implying that in general glaciers have no significant impact on the environment and all concerns expressed by real scientists are just hog-wash. A dangerously ignorant mindset.Hyperbole. We are presently in a cold spell. Earth has been much hotter in the past and there were no glaciers and life was in abundance. Dissapearing glaciers are not going to "devistate all life".I don't think anyone here has actually asserted that "all life" would disappear from Earth. The biosphere and life forms we've gotten used to will certainly be in deep shit, dying out or adapting into different creatures. (Don't forget drying glaciers won't be the only thing humanity and the biosphere will be contending with.) Still, without glaciers vast habitats will change dramatically and not for the better. Without glaciers regional weather patterns will be severely drier and ancient patterns will be disrupted. Can dusty deny that? I myself have said that without glaciers Humanity's life on Earth will descend into a living hell. Nothing about all life disappearing, just the fun stuff all of us depend on. etc.
Write4U - And if you think your “thesis" is scientifically correct, then you are in fact incorrect. And what was your “thesis again"? I don’t recall seeing any thesis from you except a factually incorrect statement.Glaciers on the inhabited continents are not essential for human water supplies. Fact.
CC - The biosphere and life forms we’ve gotten used to will certainly be in deep shit, dying out or adapting into different creatures. (Don’t forget drying glaciers won’t be the only thing humanity and the biosphere will be contending with.) Still, without glaciers vast habitats will change dramatically and not for the better. Without glaciers regional weather patterns will be severely drier and ancient patterns will be disrupted. Can dusty deny that?You haven't said anything to deny. All I see are a few vague doomsday predictions. Oh, wait, I do see something, habitats will change without deadly glaciers crushing them, true. After the deadly glaciers get out of the way life will move into the land they presently lock in virtual lifelessness. Fact. Are you daft or something? You really do not understand that a glacier kills virtually everything in its path and when it melts that opens up habitat for life? Duh.
I myself have said that without glaciers Humanity’s life on Earth will descend into a living hellHa Ha Ha!!!
If that's ALL you see in the world, then you are not paying attention to what is happening on a global scale today.CC - The biosphere and life forms we’ve gotten used to will certainly be in deep shit, dying out or adapting into different creatures. (Don’t forget drying glaciers won’t be the only thing humanity and the biosphere will be contending with.) Still, without glaciers vast habitats will change dramatically and not for the better. Without glaciers regional weather patterns will be severely drier and ancient patterns will be disrupted. Can dusty deny that?You haven't said anything to deny. All I see are a few vague doomsday predictions.
Oh, wait, I do see something, habitats will change without deadly glaciers crushing them, true. After the deadly glaciers get out of the way life will move into the land they presently lock in virtual lifelessness. Fact.Except the North Pole, after all the ice melts, there will be no land at all.
Are you daft or something? You really do not understand that a glacier kills virtually everything in its path and when it melts that opens up habitat for life? Duh.
I myself have said that without glaciers Humanity’s life on Earth will descend into a living hell
Ha Ha Ha!!!Oh man,
Yes, when you run out there is always a supermarket nearby where you can buy water.Write4U - And if you think your “thesis" is scientifically correct, then you are in fact incorrect. And what was your “thesis again"? I don’t recall seeing any thesis from you except a factually incorrect statement.Glaciers on the inhabited continents are not essential for human water supplies.
Fact.Wronggggggggg!
Glaciers provide drinking water People living in arid climates near mountains often rely on glacial melt for their water for part of the year. Many of the rivers coursing through China, India, and other parts of the Asian continent are fed largely by snowmelt from the Himalaya, but in late summer a significant part of riverflow comes from melting glaciers. In South America, residents of La Paz, Bolivia, rely on glacial melting from a nearby ice cap to provide water during the significant dry spells they sometimes experience.http://nsidc.org/cryosphere/glaciers/questions/people.html I guess those people don't need to be counted, they are relatively so few, no one will even notice if they get displaced from their homes. Is that what you are saying? Not ALL people, but SOME people do get their water from glacial melt. And that's a fact.
Write4U - If that’s ALL you see in the world, then you are not paying attention to what is happening on a global scale today.I wasn't commenting on "the world", rather, the hopelessly vague and meaningless statements made by CC, again.
SP - Oh, wait, I do see something, habitats will change without deadly glaciers crushing them, true. After the deadly glaciers get out of the way life will move into the land they presently lock in virtual lifelessness. Fact. W - Except the North Pole, after all the ice melts, there will be no land at all.WTF? There are no glaciers at the North Pole. Go buy a globe or something. Basic geography here.
Write5U - Glaciers provide drinking water People living in arid climates near mountains often rely on glacial melt for their water for part of the year. Many of the rivers coursing through China, India, and other parts of the Asian continent are fed largely by snowmelt from the Himalaya, but in late summer a significant part of riverflow comes from melting glaciers. In South America, residents of La Paz, Bolivia, rely on glacial melting from a nearby ice cap to provide water during the significant dry spells they sometimes experience.There may be thousands of reads of these threads but apparently you are not one of the readers. Precipitation provides water, not glaciers. When the glaciers are gone there will still be snowpack melt, lakes the glacier leaves behind, and upland groundwater recharge for storage. The vast majority of the rivers you guys keep yammerijng on about have almost all of their mass flow supplied by rain and snow over the whole watershed, with glacier melt being a tiny percentage. The Chinese and the Indians already dam their rivers for power, which provides storage as well. Instead of swallowing every panic story you are fed try thinking rationally on this subject for once.
W4U said,, Except the North Pole, after all the ice melts, there will be no land at all.
dusty said, WTF? There are no glaciers at the North Pole. Go buy a globe or something. Basic geography hereNow that is strange logic. I speak of "ice melts" and you say "there are no glaciers at the North Pole."
SP - Oh, wait, I do see something, habitats will change without deadly glaciers crushing them, true. After the deadly glaciers get out of the way life will move into the land they presently lock in virtual lifelessness. Fact. W - Except the North Pole, after all the ice melts, there will be no land at all.Are you being intentionally dense? Glaciers. That is what set off all the guys here into their hysterics. The absurd notion that glaciers on the inhabited continents are somehow essential to human water supplies. Pointing out the obvious fact that they are not essential to human water supplies got the guys here so whacked out they wanted to literally fine me and put me in prison simply for saying so!!! Glaciers. Remember that word. That is what I responded to. That is what I told you are deadly on the land they occupy. Then you came back with some weird thing about the North Pole. You keep mentioning the North pole. There are no glaciers at the North Pole. Nobody is getting water supplies from the North Pole. Nobody is getting fresh water from the North Pole.
After lots and lots of arm waving and studious avoidance of the actually question of this thread, it seems that our dusty couldn’t bring himself offer any actual justification for his fast and loose slander towards the climate science website https://www.skepticalscience.com. Sadly, nor can he admit to his error. But, that’s par for this course. :blank:
Just saying. For the record. 