Our Oceans are Under Attack

Strange person

 

Vice President Stevens of Confederacy undoubtedly a racist.

http://www.nps.gov/liho/historyculture/slavery.htm
How about Lincoln?
"When southern people tell us they are no more responsible for the origin of slavery, than we; I acknowledge the fact. When it is said that the institution exists; and that it is very difficult to get rid of it, in any satisfactory way, I can understand and appreciate the saying. I surely will not blame them for not doing what I should not know how to do myself. If all earthly power were given me, I should not know what to do, as to the existing institution. My first impulse would be to free all the slaves, and send them to Liberia, -- to their own native land. But a moment's reflection would convince me, that whatever of high hope, (as I think there is) there may be in this, in the long run, its sudden execution is impossible. If they were all landed there in a day, they would all perish in the next ten days; and there are not surplus shipping and surplus money enough in the world to carry them there in many times ten days. What then? Free them all, and keep them among us as underlings? Is it quite certain that this betters their condition? I think I would not hold one in slavery, at any rate; yet the point is not clear enough for me to denounce people upon. What next? Free them, and make them politically and socially, our equals? My own feelings will not admit of this; and if mine would, we well know that those of the great mass of white people will not."

more : http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v13/v13n5p-4_Morgan.html

http://www.minnpost.com/eric-black-ink/2013/05/facing-facts-about-lincoln-and-his-views-slavery

And abolitionists GREAT PATRIOTS and defenders of liberty? I think not.

http://www.history.com/news/5-things-you-may-not-know-about-lincoln-slavery-and-emancipation
"Leading abolitionist William Lloyd Garrison called the Constitution “a covenant with death and an agreement with Hell,” and went so far as to burn a copy at a Massachusetts rally in 1854."

Aren't we getting deep in politics?
Ancient politics, to be sure, but this will be my last post on the topic.

 

Currently, I'm in Mexico. original cowboy culture started in Florida and it's STILL GOING STRONG!
http://florida-cowboys.com/

"The Florida "cowhunter" or "cracker cowboy" of the 19th and early 20th centuries was distinct from the Spanish vaquero and the Western cowboy. Florida cowboys did not use lassos to herd or capture cattle. Their primary tools were cow whips and dogs"
The 'crack' of the bullwhip swung by a Cracker!
I'm a Florida Cracker.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_cracker

 

Well, ancient politics is usually called history. I think the prohibition on politics and religion is simply a practical measure out of concern for civility. People usually don't get so worked up over history, just as they usually don't get worked up when discussing defunct religions. It's only the current stuff that really gets them going. My assumption would be that we can discuss history as long as the discussion is civil.

Anyway, I wasn't claiming that Lincoln was an angel. I'm well aware that racist attitudes were common at the time and Lincoln was not exempt. My point was that regardless of how some people feel about the outcome of the war, it at least did have the positive result of ending slavery throughout the US, even though this was not one of the original aims of the war.

If the Confederacy had won, slavery would not have been abolished, or at least not for another half a century or more. I think this is clear and pretty much indisputable, and I think we would both agree that an extra half a century or so of slavery would not have been a good thing.

 

That's how they do it in Australia too.

 

We call young boys whippersnappers.

 

Does free speech allow hollering "fire" in a crowded theater or "bomb" in a airport? Or "fatty" talking to your wife?

 

One of the chief bones of contention in the climate change/global warming/oceans deteriorating debate arena, is very simply, TRUST. Whom do you trust? Whom CAN you trust?
Some people are fiercely loyal, others easily dissuaded. However loyal and attached individuals may be, one thing is in common. Remember Mr. H.D.Trust? The H.D. stands for Humpty Dumpty. Once trust is broken, regaining or renewing faith is rare.

old news
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2009/jan/18/jim-hansen-obama
it's already too late. 2013 was the deadline.
more recent old news
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/43...e-Age-as-experts-warn-of-Siberian-winter-ahea
shades of the 70s. Again ice age is coming? Climatologists! Bunch of yoyo's!

 

Graciousness had to do with class, as in the top of the heap were gracious, not the lower classes, not the "common" people, not the majority of slaves or sharecroppers. The gracious southern swells started the Civil War, that was a pretty classy move.

 

Eight Pseudoscientific Climate Claims Debunked by Real Scientists
May 16, 2014
by Joshua Holland



Most people who deny that human activity is warming the planet just dismiss a massive body of scientific evidence as a big hoax.

But there’s a more sophisticated set of climate “skeptics” who make arguments that, at least to the lay ear, sound like they’re grounded in scientific evidence. And because most of us lack the background to evaluate their claims, they can muddy the waters around an issue that’s been settled in the scientific community.

So, as a public service, we gathered eight of the most common of these pseudoscientific arguments and asked some serious climate scientists — all working climatologists who have been widely published — to help us understand what makes these claims so misleading.

1. No, the Earth Hasn’t Stopped Warming Since 1998 (or 1996 or 1997)

2. No, the IPCC Makes Projections, Not Predictions


3. Yes, the Temperature Readings Are Reliable


4. Yes, There Is a Scientific Consensus


5. It’s Not the Sun’s Fault


6. Doubling Down With “Global Cooling”


7. Yes, It’s Been Warm Before


8. No, Antarctic Ice Isn’t Increasing


These are only some of the most common pseudoscientific climate arguments. The Skeptical Science website provides easy-to-understand scientific rebuttals to these and 168 others.

http://billmoyers.com/2014/05/16/eight-pseudo-scientific-climate-claims-debunked-by-real-scientists/


.

 

malarkey
I'm not going to waste my time debunking each of these spurious debunks.

This, #8 is too choice to resist.

http://billmoyers.com/2014/05/16/eight-pseudo-scientific-climate-claims-debunked-by-real-scientists/

Sea ice, on the other hand, builds up in the winter and melts almost entirely in the summer. The difference between the two is crucial — melting land ice increases ocean levels significantly, while sea ice melt has a lesser effect.

Trenberth says that the claim is based on the spread of sea ice, not overall ice volume. “This is a very important distinction because sea ice gets blown around by the winds, and around Antarctica there are very strong winds,” he says. “And we actually know why the sea ice changes from year to year — we have solid evidence. When there are southerly winds, winds blowing away from the continent, then the ice spreads out and almost creates an ice factory because it opens up little gaps between the ice and then more ice forms in the gaps. That sea ice is often very thin, and while it can spread a long way, it doesn’t amount to much in terms of volume.”




http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dg...rove-antarctic-ice-is-melting-trapped-by-ice/

"Global Warming Expedition to Prove Antarctic Ice is Melting Trapped by Ice
The metaphor just couldn’t be more fitting: desperate true believers of global warming/accelerating polar ice melt now find themselves trapped by thousands of square kilometers of summertime sea ice that wasn’t supposed to be there."

"Thin insubstantial ice doesn't amount to much" unbreakable by icebreaker.

AGW propagandists hoisted by their own petard! LOL.

Science is about observation, not biased computer models.
OBSERVE the AGWers icebound in the photo! REAL science by observation.

 

Global warming looking from space

The ice caps are white and reflect sunlight, the sunlight is mostly reflected back into space.
This helps to keep the Earth cool.
With the ice caps melting, the sunlight will no longer reflect into space as much.
The ocean will become darker.
Dark colors absorb sunlight, this will cause the ocean to heat up, furthermore contribute to global warming

 

Depends how fat your wife is I suppose.

The thing is that politeness, and taking offence, can also be used a weapon to shut people down. I've seen that happen more times than I can remember. I agree that malicious speech just for the sake of being malicious is not a good thing, but politeness can be a problem too sometimes.

 

Scientists have raised fears of rising sea levels after pictures showed Greenland's ice sheet has melted over a larger area than at any time in more than 30 years of satellite observations.
One expert even suspected that the satellites had made a mistake at first, so surprising were the results.
Son Nghiem, of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California, was analysing radar data from the Indian Space Research Organisation's (ISRO) Oceansat-2 satellite last week when he noticed that most of Greenland appeared to have undergone surface melting.
He said: 'This was so extraordinary that at first I questioned the result - was this real or was it due to a data error?'
Mr Nghiem checked the Oceansat-2's findings against pictures taken by other satellites, belonging to NASA and the US Air Force.

Unprecedented: These maps show the extent of surface melt over Greenland's ice sheet on July 8 (left) and July 12 (right)

 

Well, call me stupid, but personally I'd be more inclined to trust those who update their theories in the light of the best information currently available, and rather less inclined to trust those who think the best way to approach science is to refuse to update their theories for thousands of years.