(April 30, 2013 at 10:19 pm)orogenicman Wrote:(April 30, 2013 at 1:14 pm)A_Nony_Mouse Wrote: My Methuselah points are that what opinion there is on global melting is that it was once a global ice age. I have made several other Methuselah points such as by the SAME scientists have have taken up melting as a political cause, if was in fact to late to do anything about it in 1999, also in 2000, 2001, and 2002 because by those years it was too late to do anything about it as in "in ten years it will be too late" (insert hysterical exclamation points here)
Melting of the Arctic sea ice is not a political cause, it is a scientific fact. Second point - you failed top address poppy's point.
And it is a fact that, absent satellite cameras, it appeared nearly as short of ice in the early 1930s as it is today.
That aside as I do not know if I can find the article again, the idea that a total absence of arctic sea ice is BAD is a political idea. IF there is no arctic ice that implies the arctic is warmer meaning all the land north of the arctic circle should be opening to food production instead of tourists looking at polar bears.
Then also the commercial gains of direct shipping between northern Europe and Asia, the fabled Northwest Passage hardly needs be mentioned. Also it will open the arctic oil fields to much easier exploitation.
If you can convince me those two points are BAD absolutely rather than just a political position devoid of scientific content I will come up with a few more advantages such as no more arctic icebergs.
One can always resort to argumentation but is of no more value in melting than it is with god(s). Physical evidence only.
I have no idea what point I did not address but I am sure he will point it out to me.