Re: Agenda 21; The Wrenching Transformation of America
Home › Forums › DISCUSS › General Discussion and Questions › Agenda 21; The Wrenching Transformation of America › Re: Agenda 21; The Wrenching Transformation of America
[quote]And yes, the barrel rose about 2%. Yet that 2% represents less than an inch of rise in the oceans. And no, the oceans are just proportionally bigger than the barrel, the math is the same and the increase proportionally the same. The percentage rise and the rise in height (.7 inch) are exactly the same. That is just math, I didn’t invent it.[/quote]
So, you’re still maintaining that oceans would only rise .7 inches if all the glaciers melted? Don’t the real experts findings, again cited below, have any impact on your thinking/math? You clearly don’t understand proportionality if that is still you stance.
- Glacial ice covers 10-11 percent of all land.
- According to the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC), if all glaciers melted today the seas would rise about 230 feet (70 meters).
- During the last ice age (when glaciers covered more land area than today) the sea level was about 400 feet (122 meters) lower than it is today. At that time, glaciers covered almost one-third of the land.
- During the last warm spell, 125,000 years ago, the seas were about 18 feet (5.5 meters) higher than they are today. About three million years ago the seas could have been up to 165 feet (50.3 meters) higher.
Yes, I am still maintaining that, and what your biased experts have to say about the matter doesn’t affect my ability to look at it independently one iota. That is argumentum ad verecundiam or the argument from authority:
"where a participant argues that a belief is correct because the person making the argument is an authority. The most general structure of this argument runs something like the following:
- Person A claims that P
- Person A is a respected scientist or other authority
- Therefore, P is true.
This is a fallacy because the truth or falsity of the claim is not necessarily related to the personal qualities of the claimant."
Surely you don’t want to base your argument on a logical fallacy. Would you not lose it on that basis alone?
There are many scientists out there (although in the minority I would hope) that do science only to push an agenda. AGW is simply another agenda designed to spread the wealth, just as the Kyoto Protocol was designed to do, from wealthier nations to poorer nations.
But here’s an idea, get one of those scientists in here to uphold those figures in debate. Betcha a dollar to a donut that there would be no takers.