Global Warming, eh?

[Ben D]

One question about which I genuinely have no information. How do temperatures compare on other planets of late ? Do we know?

It would require remote sensing satellites in orbit around the planets to do that and personally I'm not aware in any detail of the status of operational inter planetary probes or their specialized missions at this time. But I doubt that there is any research along those lines at this time.

[Iamwhomiam]

Sounder, you've got me baffled! I haven't the slightest idea what you're talking about here:

"Hey Jim, not only did I not complain about not being understood, I think my missive shortly before your inane post stated my position in a way so as to be accessible even to the learning impaired, such as yourself."

Perhaps, you'll refer to me by my username, if you don't mind. And please do explain your comment for me.

I haven't directed a question to you in many many pages. I do recall you didn't answer my questions way back then, though. I also do not post anything that could even remotely be considered inane. I also assure you I am anything but learning disabled.

[Ben D]

If I may be of assistance to help resolve the confusion Iam, it does seem to me that Sounder was addressing (Jim?) Wintler2's post of Thu Feb 09, 2012 8:57 am.

But tell me you're joking cos if you're not, then I would suggest you take a rest from this thread for awhile,..seriously friend.

On edit...

Unless,......unless,......your actual real name is Jim,...then it's another mystery solved

[Sounder]

Iamwhomiam, nothing in that was directed at you.

It was an expression of irrationality because I felt that was a good trigger to trade with wintler2 for the one he imposed on me.

I love people that think differently than myself because it sharpens my own thinking, but I love them better when they stick to the subject without adding unwarranted confabulations. (Directed at wintler2)

Lets try to keep it rational and we can get along just fine.

And now a word from our sponsor.

[brainpanhandler]

So youre saying that the Sun, with 99% of the mass of the solar system and the graphs you show, explaining the increase in Solar Radiance activity might be a bigger factor than AGW ?

Do you agree with that statement Ben?

Also, I am unable to open this PDF:

Here is a link (it's a PDF file of 41 Mb, so don't tell me I didn't warn you if you download it) to a Poster Display by Judith LEAN (Naval Research Laboratory, USA)...Variations in Solar Irradiation and Climate

What is a Poster Display?

And if you have time can you offer an opinion on the article, also by Judith Lean, at the following link:

http://www.agci.org/docs/lean.pdf

And lastly, might you pick a few links from the following search where I could do more reading on the effect of the variability of the sun's energy output and it's effect on the the earth's climate:

http://www.google.com/#hl=en&cp=34&gs_i ... 47&bih=721

[Iamwhomiam]

Ben, Isn't it about time you began to answer at least some of the questions I've asked you? You did say you would, so how about living up to your word, hmm?

Ben wrote:

Iamwhomiam wrote:
Ben, would you remind all of us who wrote this way back on Page 5:

"This discussion is not about the 0.8 degree C warming according to the green trend line on the graph, there is consensus on that"

Perhaps now, you'll answer at least a few of the many questions that I've asked you. Sorry your memory is so poor you need such reminders and feel the need to ask repeatedly questions to answers long ago agreed upon.

Sure thing friend Ian, you intuively were on the right track by emphasizing 'way' back on page 5. At the beginning of the thread, I presumed anyone and everyone who was posting on this Global Warming thread would know this. But Low and behold,.. imagine my flabbergastion to realize that most of the CAGWers didn't have a clue. So it was not possible to engage in any meaningful way when confronted with that sort of ignorance until that hurdle had been cleared.

Actually Ian, I must confess from my experience, so often I find the average person whose understanding of the world's reality is generally limited to practically word for word on what they hear over the the radio waves,.. what they see and hear on TV,.. and Internet.

Apparently for all the ubiquitousness and repetitiveness of pro CAGW fear campaign propaganda, it never does get around to informing the dumbed down 'battery hens' exactly how much known warming there has been to date. So when I tell them it's 0.8 of a degree C, their response is like happened here,... discombobulation associated with initial disbelief,...and later denial. of the figure of 0.8 degree C, and the source from which it comes. However interestingly, they never out and out go literally 'bananas' and abuse me like you, presumably because it's face to face,...bullies like it better when there is physical separation don't ya think?

Please don't make me repeat my many questions put to you. I'm sure if you could find you way to the WSJ and the Mail, you can locate them in this thread.

While the tip o' the hat smiley is cute, it a bit distracting from your intent; that I've abused and bullied you. That's not my style. Revealing one's ignorance is a bit different than shoving it in your face or down your throat. If we were face to face I assure you that your own offense would be turned against you, as I don't believe violence solves any problem.

By the way, ignorance is nothing for anyone to be ashamed of. There are many things I am quite ignorant of, like modern authors of fiction, for one example. Just haven't been able to find much time for recreational reading, and I'm not at all ashamed of my ignorance in this area. I just listen to discussions about this topic without actively participating.

And let me also say that I am far from your average person insofar as environmental issues are concerned. I offer guidance to legislators and policy makers and work with grassroots community activists on preventing serious threats to their environment and their health. That guidance always promotes adopting the Precautionary Principle, reducing sources of pollution and protecting public health and our environment.

The cost of remediation is is too high a price to pay for cleaning up polluted areas and the health care costs are to high as well, for caring for those made ill by pollutants. Proper regulation reduces the need for bearing such costs as these.

I'm retired and still work on average 18 hours a day fighting wrong-minded and injurious policies and polluters. And I do not receive any compensation of any kind for my efforts. But I am very well respected and sometimes feared by polluters; feared because whenever I present my case I offer forward inarguable scientific proof to reinforce my stance. Whether it's from Harvard scientists, MIT engineers, or physicians who've documented damage done by pollutants to individuals.

And please don't again mistake this as me boasting. It is not boastful, but pure and simple fact.

What do you do for a living, Ben D? Are you simply one of those average folk you've described, or do you work in the environmental field? A scientist? An Engineer, perhaps? An employee of a polluting multi-national firm? Perhaps you're an undertaker? I do believe you're a Down Underer.

Can we all agree that the term 'CAGW' is a creation of your own mind and not a term used by or referred to by the scientific community?

Let's just forget about the 'A' for a moment in AGW, at least in the context being mention below. I believe we all agree the Global Warming is occurring, so let's start there...

Do you Ben D, believe that Global Warming, regardless of why it is warming, results in changing our climate and weather patterns around the world?

Let's leave out of the discussion, at least for the sake of our present conversation, changing weather patterns and their impact, ok?

Do you believe that melting Arctic and Antarctic ice is occurring as a result of Global Warming, regardless of its cause?

Do you believe that this ice melt will raise the earth's water levels?

If you answer 'yes' to those questions, I have only one more to ask you at this time:

Do you believe the rising waters will have a catastrophic impact on low land level populations, their islands, their cities and their agriculture?

[Iamwhomiam]

Tazmic, Don't you have some meditating to do? Really, it's much better for you than your posting ridiculous nonsense about The Precautionary Principle that leads the ignorant astray. (at least another few turns of the wheel, for that)

Here's what The Precautionary Principle is:

The Science and Environmental Health Network is working to implement the precautionary principle as a basis for environmental and public health policy. The principle and the main components of its implementation are stated this way in the 1998 Wingspread Statement on the Precautionary Principle:

"When an activity raises threats of harm to human health or the environment, precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully established scientifically. In this context the proponent of an activity, rather than the public, should bear the burden of proof. The process of applying the precautionary principle must be open, informed and democratic and must include potentially affected parties. It must also involve an examination of the full range of alternatives, including no action." - Wingspread Statement on the Precautionary Principle, Jan. 1998

The precautionary principle, virtually unknown here six years ago, is now a U.S. phenomenon. In December 2001 the New York Times Magazine listed the principle as one of the most influential ideas of the year, describing the intellectual, ethical, and policy framework SEHN had developed around the principle.

In June 2003, the Board of Supervisors of the City and County of San Francisco became the first government body in the United States to make the precautionary principle the basis for all its environmental policy.

Read Frequently Asked Questions for a quick overview of the precautionary principle or this White Paper for full background.

Understanding the Role of Science in Regulation. The Wingspread Statement and the European Union in Environmental Health Perspectives Volume 117 Number 3 March 2009.

There are many publications dealing with The Precautionary Principle linked to on the Science and Environmental News website.

[Ben D]

So youre saying that the Sun, with 99% of the mass of the solar system and the graphs you show, explaining the increase in Solar Radiance activity might be a bigger factor than AGW ?

Do you agree with that statement Ben?

Also, I am unable to open this PDF:

Here is a link (it's a PDF file of 41 Mb, so don't tell me I didn't warn you if you download it) to a Poster Display by Judith LEAN (Naval Research Laboratory, USA)...Variations in Solar Irradiation and Climate

What is a Poster Display?

And if you have time can you offer an opinion on the article, also by Judith Lean, at the following link:

http://www.agci.org/docs/lean.pdf

And lastly, might you pick a few links from the following search where I could do more reading on the effect of the variability of the sun's energy output and it's effect on the the earth's climate:

http://www.google.com/#hl=en&cp=34&gs_i ... 47&bih=721

Heh heh, remember not to confuse the messenger with the message you silly old sausage...

Well why didn't you go to this link I provided and download it from the link there, use your initiative man .... ....The 2nd Nagoya Workshop on the Relationship between Solar Activity and Climate Changes16-17 January, 2012 | Noyori Conference Hall, Nagoya University (Nagoya, Japan)

A poster display is an optional way to present the results of your research at scientific conferences, usually using PDF or Power Point.

Yes, it's good to see bright people like Judith Lean taking up the challenge to show that solar irradiance variations is a real factor to an improved understanding of climate change.

So far as picking links for you, there is no reason why you can't do it yourself you silly old sausage, you have to go no further than the 14 links of presentations at Nagoya University link.

Oh. and while I have your attention, about this post....

the CAGW scam meant to foist a carbon taxing one world government on the people of planet Earth

And you claim the climate scientists are the fear mongers.

And natohellwithyouaste as well.

I do understand that people with a parochial interest of reality would not be aware that a carbon tax has already been legislated in Australia,.. .in compliance with the wishes of the CAGW lobby,... \who in turn do their bit in compliance with the providers of the finance (aka ruling elite, empire, one world gubment wannabes, etc.,) that funds their scamming activities,...follow the money trail. So the carbon tax isn't a mental construct like CAGW, it's already manifested in reality here, and yes, unless this scam (CAGW, not GW) can be exposed and unraveled, it's coming to a place near you.

Other than that,...what Sounder said!

Namaste...

[Ben D]

Ben, Isn't it about time you began to answer at least some of the questions I've asked you? You did say you would, so how about living up to your word, hmm?

What do you do for a living, Ben D? Are you simply one of those average folk you've described, or do you work in the environmental field? A scientist? An Engineer, perhaps? An employee of a polluting multi-national firm? Perhaps you're an undertaker? I do believe you're a Down Underer.

Can we all agree that the term 'CAGW' is a creation of your own mind and not a term used by or referred to by the scientific community?

Let's just forget about the 'A' for a moment in AGW, at least in the context being mention below. I believe we all agree the Global Warming is occurring, so let's start there...

Do you Ben D, believe that Global Warming, regardless of why it is warming, results in changing our climate and weather patterns around the world?

Let's leave out of the discussion, at least for the sake of our present conversation, changing weather patterns and their impact, ok?

Do you believe that melting Arctic and Antarctic ice is occurring as a result of Global Warming, regardless of its cause?

Do you believe that this ice melt will raise the earth's water levels?

If you answer 'yes' to those questions, I have only one more to ask you at this time: Do you believe the rising waters will have a catastrophic impact on low land level populations, their islands, their cities and their agriculture?

Hi Jim, is that really your name,...nice? I've had a little time to respond to you in this instance, but I have the distinct feeling my responding to you in this format, or any other format for that matter, will never satisfy you so long as my answers don't reflect your preconceived conclusions of PC AGW dogma. Let us see....

Meditate...

No CAGW = Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming

Yes

Ok

Loaded question, Antarctica as whole has been gaining ice mass for the last three to four decades. And there are other factors regarding the Arctic ice reduction and that of the Antarctic Western Peninsula than the 0.8 degree C of GW.

When the difference between ice gain and ice melt is negative, sea levels will rise, otoh when the difference is positive, the levels will fall. This is a dynamic process and the forming and melting is occurring simultaneously and continuously, sometimes resulting in a rise, sometimes in a fall over time.

In any event Iam, I don't deal in hypotheticals, so remember to keep it real when dealing with me.

[brainpanhandler]

Well why didn't you go to this link I provided and download it from the link there, use your initiative man .... ....The 2nd Nagoya Workshop on the Relationship between Solar Activity and Climate Changes16-17 January, 2012 | Noyori Conference Hall, Nagoya University (Nagoya, Japan)

Yes. Sorry. I forgot to mention that I tried that too and I wasn't able to open it.

So youre saying that the Sun, with 99% of the mass of the solar system and the graphs you show, explaining the increase in Solar Radiance activity might be a bigger factor than AGW ?

Do you agree with that statement Ben?

Yes, it's good to see bright people like Judith Lean taking up the challenge to show that solar irradiance variations is a real factor to an improved understanding of climate change.

Ok, so you read the article? What then do you think of Lean's analysis of the relative effects of increased solar irradiance as compared with the anthropogenic greenhouse gas component?

[Ben D]

Yes. Sorry. I forgot to mention that I tried that too and I wasn't able to open it.

So youre saying that the Sun, with 99% of the mass of the solar system and the graphs you show, explaining the increase in Solar Radiance activity might be a bigger factor than AGW ?

Do you agree with that statement Ben?

Yes, it's good to see bright people like Judith Lean taking up the challenge to show that solar irradiance variations is a real factor to an improved understanding of climate change.

Ok, so you read the article? What then do you think of Lean's analysis of the relative effects of increased solar irradiance as compared with the anthropogenic greenhouse gas component?

That's just terrible bph. Anyone else have trouble with the links?...

Bph you silly old sausage, I've already replied to that question. (If you were not aware, yes of course there are scientists who study the Sun and its influence on global climate and who think that Solar irradiance has a bigger contribution than CO2,...)

Bph, no doubt Judith Lean has done lots of research and has published many papers, but the post in which I referenced her work that slim commented on is the extent of my knowledge and interest for now. If you wan't to stay relevant, pay attention to the present here and now.

And speaking of Judith Lean, this is the last poster from Judith Lean's presentation at Nagoya University...



Namste..

[eyeno]

So youre saying that the Sun, with 99% of the mass of the solar system and the graphs you show, explaining the increase in Solar Radiance activity might be a bigger factor than AGW ?

Do you agree with that statement Ben?

Also, I am unable to open this PDF:

Here is a link (it's a PDF file of 41 Mb, so don't tell me I didn't warn you if you download it) to a Poster Display by Judith LEAN (Naval Research Laboratory, USA)...Variations in Solar Irradiation and Climate

What is a Poster Display?

And if you have time can you offer an opinion on the article, also by Judith Lean, at the following link:

http://www.agci.org/docs/lean.pdf

And lastly, might you pick a few links from the following search where I could do more reading on the effect of the variability of the sun's energy output and it's effect on the the earth's climate:

http://www.google.com/#hl=en&cp=34&gs_i ... 47&bih=721

Heh heh, remember not to confuse the messenger with the message you silly old sausage...

Well why didn't you go to this link I provided and download it from the link there, use your initiative man .... ....The 2nd Nagoya Workshop on the Relationship between Solar Activity and Climate Changes16-17 January, 2012 | Noyori Conference Hall, Nagoya University (Nagoya, Japan)

A poster display is an optional way to present the results of your research at scientific conferences, usually using PDF or Power Point.

Yes, it's good to see bright people like Judith Lean taking up the challenge to show that solar irradiance variations is a real factor to an improved understanding of climate change.

So far as picking links for you, there is no reason why you can't do it yourself you silly old sausage, you have to go no further than the 14 links of presentations at Nagoya University link.

Oh. and while I have your attention, about this post....

the CAGW scam meant to foist a carbon taxing one world government on the people of planet Earth

And you claim the climate scientists are the fear mongers.

And natohellwithyouaste as well.

I do understand that people with a parochial interest of reality would not be aware that a carbon tax has already been legislated in Australia,.. .in compliance with the wishes of the CAGW lobby,... \who in turn do their bit in compliance with the providers of the finance (aka ruling elite, empire, one world gubment wannabes, etc.,) that funds their scamming activities,...follow the money trail. So the carbon tax isn't a mental construct like CAGW, it's already manifested in reality here, and yes, unless this scam (CAGW, not GW) can be exposed and unraveled, it's coming to a place near you.

Other than that,...what Sounder said!

Namaste...

After many hours of deliberation I have decided to retire from posting. The decision came hard but it is a decision I needed to make for myself for several reasons.

'They' say "never say never" but I feel this may be the decision I make and I feel very strongly about it for many reasons which would take too many paragraphs to illuminate. I wanted to make one more post in this thread though. So much science is left out of this discussion that it boggles the mind, and could be so interesting.

The last link I will leave in this thread could be cross posted to the "pyramids beaming energy into the sky" and "the hum" threads. If you read the link you will understand why. Wilheim Reich and Trevor Constable. Both established links to the ionosphere from the earth very easily. Trevor Constable did so with a navy ship using Reich's ideas and from a plane. Reich did so simply by using stove pipes, three of them, with layers of wool between them, grounded in a running stream of water. Known today as a "cloud buster" and much scoffed at but Reich is nothing to scoff at. I"ve done the same with layers of copper pipe filled with crystal and layered with wool grounded in a running stream of water. Beware, this shit can cause ill health effects! A pyramid, built of the correct minerals, could easily disrupt the POTENTIAL between earth and sky, just like lighting does, and cause a link to the ionosphere. Not nutty thought, just a natural fact. HAARP strips the electrons from the ionosphere and causes a virtual iron nail to hit the ground and go deep into the strata of the earth just like lightning without the visible lightning bolt.

Lack of research, leads to lack of imagination, leads to deafness and blindness. Since 2001 I have spent 60,000 hours, maybe more researching these topics. I smile when I see the word "conspiratard"....lol...

It TOOK ME SEVERAL HOURS TO GET THROUGH BEN D'S POST about the SUN. It confirmed my previous research (hundreds of hours, maybe more) that the Sun is the relevant mediator of climate change. If you take a couple of DOZEN HOURS to go through the research by the Noyori Conference and the Naval Research Laboratory it might leave you with a big siggghhhhhh like it did me.

Well eyeno, if you did hundreds of hours of research on the SUN in the past why not share it with us? Are you kidding me? I supposed it to wintler2 and all I got was the IPCC negation. But in all fairness that was all I asked for, but not impressed.

The elliptical orbit of the Earth, contrary to popular belief, does not always maintain the same orbit over time. Slight changes add up to big changes in climate. The magnetic signature of the earth, and it's poles, migrate with time. WEATHER AND POLES MIGRATE TOGETHER. WEATHER AND POLES MIGRATE TOGETHER. WEATHER AND POLES MIGRATE TOGETHER. How hard is that? Ice and fire, Ice and Fire, Ice and fire....Look at the magnetosphere, look at its picture, see what you SEE.

Not to mention the fact that the SUN, and it's 20 year variations, or 11 years, or 22 years, depending on how you want to SEE, it, have been known for thousands of years to predict cyclone cycles, ice ages, etc....

Ben D produced information that OBVIOUSLY detractors spent zero time looking at because in order to refute it with anything other than "not true" some sort of evidence should have been provided to refute it. No evidence was provided, only consternation, and with a condescending attitude.

It took me roughly, and I say roughly, two dozen hours to get through this information. Were I to try to elicit a conversation about it?, it would only be met with, "is not, is too, is not, is too." And so it goes..........ad infinitum
-----------------------------------------------
On another topic, unrelated, for the link connectors, this....

There are more things in this universe than we are aware of. This link is fertile ground for study, and for some, as Paul Harvey says, "the rest of the story"....infrasound lasers, untrasound, etc...

Analysts contend that infrasound is composed of a very broad band of pitches. These tones of immense pressure and duration "accommodate" themselves when encountering resonant cavities. All such resonant cavities are "found and destroyed" when the proper pressure waves flow into their resonances. Rooms, halls, alleys, spaces among buildings, courtyard areas, cellars, subways, sewer chambers; all these burst open into flying fragments when infrasonic waves flood them. Infrasound is the cruel tonal giant, tearing open whatever it finds in its path.

Let your imagination be your guide.

Not to be taken as writ, but a jumping place for research.
http://www.hbci.com/~wenonah/history/gavreau.htm

http://journal.borderlands.com/1996/the ... r-gavreau/

GAVREAU. Sure you may find some that say his research is bogus but what would you expect to find?


Adios. I will read you guys and gals with interest and I have certainly enjoyed this forum.


EDIT: Warming comes in Winter, too, two.
http://www.deflationeconomy.com/kondratiev-wave.html

[Ben D]

.
T'was good of you that you shared your time and present understanding here at RI eyeno, but I understand that when you sense the time is now when you are to move 'forward',...do it.

Thanks for the many enjoyable and interesting posts on the esoteric nature that underlies the mundane reality perceived by mortals, and at the end of the day, I'm reminded of this Muslim saying,...if all the oceans of the world were ink, and all the trees of the world were pens, it wouldn't be sufficient to record even an insignificant number of sayings of the knowledge of God.

Whoever among men who walk the Earth has seen these Mysteries is blessed, but whoever in uninitiated and has not received his share of the rite, he will not have the same lot as the others, once he is dead and dwells in the mould where the sun goes down. - Homer's Hymn to Demeter

All the best for the unfolding before you. Remember that beneath all the sheaths of material and subtle embodiment that bewilder and 'blind' the mortal mind, when unveiled, there is no 'other', just omnipresence.

That's the meaning of...Namaste
.


.

[Iamwhomiam]

Ben wrote:

If you wan't to stay relevant, pay attention to the present here and now.

I wrote:
Perhaps, you'll refer to me by my username, if you don't mind.

Perhaps you should take your own advice, Ben. And please refer to me by my username. 2nd request.

I asked Ben:
What do you do for a living, Ben D? Are you simply one of those average folk you've described, or do you work in the environmental field? A scientist? An Engineer, perhaps? An employee of a polluting multi-national firm? Perhaps you're an undertaker? I do believe you're a Down Underer.

His response: I've had a little time to respond to you in this instance, but I have the distinct feeling my responding to you in this format, or any other format for that matter, will never satisfy you so long as my answers don't reflect your preconceived conclusions of PC AGW dogma. Let us see....

Meditate...

Non-responsive, Ben

I wrote:
Can we all agree that the term 'CAGW' is a creation of your own mind and not a term used by or referred to by the scientific community?

Ben's response:
No CAGW = Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming

Ben replied with a link to a spurious user provided source of acronym definitions.

Ben, how do I know you didn't just enter that definition? Perhaps you'll provide some other source the acronym is utilized, like a scientific paper. If you cannot, we'll have to assume the term is of your own creation. As I've said before, your use of it here in this thread is the only instance I've ever seen it used.
Shouldn't be too hard to do. Inadequate response.

I suggested:
Let's just forget about the 'A' for a moment in AGW, at least in the context being mention below. I believe we all agree the Global Warming is occurring, so let's start there...

Ben's response: No response

I asked Ben:
Do you Ben D, believe that Global Warming, regardless of why it is warming, results in changing our climate and weather patterns around the world?

Ben's response: Yes (Finally! A direct answer to a direct question. Thank you Ben.

I suggested:
Let's leave out of the discussion, at least for the sake of our present conversation, changing weather patterns and their impact, ok?

Ben's response: Ok (Finally some agreement on an important point of limiting the argument.)

I asked:
Do you believe that melting Arctic and Antarctic ice is occurring as a result of Global Warming, regardless of its cause?

Ben's response to a yes or no question:
Loaded question, Antarctica as whole has been gaining ice mass for the last three to four decades. And there are other factors regarding the Arctic ice reduction and that of the Antarctic Western Peninsula than the 0.8 degree C of GW.

So you cannot or refuse to answer whether a warming Earth (the green trend line) is melting Polar ice, though you do admit the earth is indeed warming... Interesting.

Ben continues evading an answer:

When the difference between ice gain and ice melt is negative, sea levels will rise, otoh when the difference is positive, the levels will fall. This is a dynamic process and the forming and melting is occurring simultaneously and continuously, sometimes resulting in a rise, sometimes in a fall over time.

Regardless of your attempt to rationalize ice gain and loss, that was not the question. Considering you've agreed that the Earth is warming, in effect your attempting to deny that this will result in melting polar ice, which is contrary to the law of thermodynamics. Overall, in a warming Earth, ice melt will always be greater than ice gain, regardless of seasonal fluctuations.

I asked Ben:
Do you believe that this ice melt will raise the earth's water levels?

Ben's response:
In any event Iam, I don't deal in hypotheticals, so remember to keep it real when dealing with me.

Ben, melting ice cannot do anything but raise the Earth's waters. This is not hypothetical. It is a fact.

I asked Ben:
If you answer 'yes' to those questions, I have only one more to ask you at this time: Do you believe the rising waters will have a catastrophic impact on low land level populations, their islands, their cities and their agriculture?

Considering that Ben has answered one question 'Yes'; posited a dubious reference in relation to CAGW; and refused to answer direct questions regarding his beliefs as hypotheticals, I would have to say that once again you have refused to enter into honest argument.

Ben D, you are a flaming asshole (need a smiley for that) and incapable of having an honest and intelligent discussion. You haven't even tried. And the entire premise of your argument is hypothetical, jackass. Save your ignorant jackass arguments for your ignorant friends, you know, "the average person(s) whose understanding of the world's reality is generally limited to practically word for word on what they hear over the the radio waves,.. what they see and hear on TV,.. and Internet," for these you may impress, but you will have no success impressing any knowledgeable person here. Suffer me the fools.

[Ben D]

Ben D, you are a flaming asshole (need a smiley for that) and incapable of having an honest and intelligent discussion. You haven't even tried. And the entire premise of your argument is hypothetical, jackass. Save your ignorant jackass arguments for your ignorant friends, you know, "the average person(s) whose understanding of the world's reality is generally limited to practically word for word on what they hear over the the radio waves,.. what they see and hear on TV,.. and Internet," for these you may impress, but you will have no success impressing any knowledgeable person here. Suffer me the fools.

Jimbo you silly old sausage, you've made a meal of doing the quotes and comments so that there is a semblance of logical order. You're out of your depth, what am I to do with you?

And as to your comments quoted above, I've told you before, flattery goes nowhere with me, especially when I know you really don't mean it you old smoothie...

Jimbo, don't you even know how to do a google search? Oh well since the last CAGW link didn't convince you, here ya go ,...CAGW—Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming—is a complete con, a fraudulent, pseudo-scientific scam

Seriously Iam, it is clearly evident that you are passionate about your CAGW, and that's Ok with me. I've not ever had the thought of trying to get you to recant, isn't that good enough for you? Just go about your normal routine of doing whatever you do saving the Planet and forget about me, I really don't like upsetting you like this just by being incarnate here on planet Earth/Myalba at the same time as the Tulku chose.

Bye and namaste...