.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
stillbornagain
-
Posts
386 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Downloads
Posts posted by stillbornagain
-
-
Americans are watching Europe in horror. It's live on TV. They don't want any part of it. Build a wall. Control borders. Polish your rifles.
China has been ripping the US off for more than 40 years now under both Dem and Repubs, and thumbing their nose with what they do in the South China Sea. Trump has promised to put the hurts on them and bring jobs back. Americans are tired of wars in God forsaken places. People believe him and they are voting for him.
The bale of hay Hillary is toast.
Cheers.
People vote for Trump?
Surveys show Trump will have the lowest minority vote in the history of POTUS elections.
He has alienated himself from most of the major religions in the USA.
He has alienated himself from women voters.
Republican registered voters say they would rather vote for Hillary than Trump. Or not vote at all.
Recent poll of voters age 18-29 shows only 25% likely to vote for Trump compared to 61% for Hillary, marking a low point back to 1972.
Like the Prayut regime, Trump is drawing the nation together - against himself.
Surveys are krap.
What you are dealing with, is a bunch of dummies calling up random households...or handing out pamphlets with check boxes. Results can be obtained just by selecting areas that you know will feed in the numbers.
Wise up....and look at the real facts.
millions of supporters....way more than the opposition. More delegates....nobody even comes close. For Christmas's sake....look at the numbers. Close to a thousand now.
More republican voters going out to vote. Don is on a roll. Even some democrats are jumping a sinking ship to join up on Don's side.
We've seen this kind of reasoning before. Or is it unreasoning? Remember 2012? When Fox and similar outlets were claiming that the polls were skewed? In fact, somebody created a site called unskewedpolls.com just to cater to that mathematically challenged crowd. It was very popular with the right until Nov 8, 2012. Nate Silver was vilified by the right for saying Obama was by far the likely winner of that election. And when the results came in Silver had called a mere 50 out of 50 states correctly. I suspect that a lot of these hyped-up Trump supporters subscribed to that vilification.
But if you want to see a sample of the kind of "reasoning" used by slipperylobster et alii, just go to this Peggy Noonan posting at the Wall Street Journal made on Nov 5, 2012. It's truly astonishing. http://blogs.wsj.com/peggynoonan/2012/11/05/monday-morning/
If you don't want to read the whole thing but only the highlights go here: http://www.businessinsider.com/peggy-noonan-romney-obama-prediction-electoral-college-map-wall-street-journal-2012-11
-
Just a point to consider: has anyone worked out the "carbon emissions" from all the wars over the last 102 years. The amount of munitions expended has been huge. Maybe the greens should blame the military for the increase in CO2 rather than industry ! Remember, it was the same politicians who start wars that are now declaring they want to save the planet.
I laughed out loud when that party of "environmentalists" sailed from Australia to witness the vanishing southern ice cap and got stuck in an expanding ice sheet, so ironic ! It took 2 ice-breakers to free them ?
Munitions would have no impact on CO2 levels.
Nothing unusual for ships to be trapped in ice flows. Your not going to start throwing snowballs around are you 'Senator Inhofe'
Are you really saying the manufacture of all the munitions and their use in all the 20th century wars had no effect on CO2 levels ? Wow that's one heck of an assumption, and then of course there's the 2 nuclear bombs + all the bomb tests by both right wing and left wing governments. As you are so "facts based" I would like to know which scientific papers you referenced to prove that assumption.
Sure it's not unusual for ships to be caught in ice-flows. My point was it was ironic that a team sent to observe retreating ice sheets got caught in an expanding one.
Once again, massive ignorance of planet is on display. in this case, someone who has confused the North and South poles. Ice is disappear from the Northern end of the planet because it's an ocean. No land mass. On the southern end we have a continent called antartica with a huge ice shelf that extends from the continent. There the ice regularly retreats then expands.
-
It addresses the often cited falsehood that warming stopped in 1998.
It is not a "falsehood" -- it is an assertion backed by statistical analysis which is supported by, among others, the UK Meteorological Office.
There are many statistical analyses that can be done on temperature data since 1998 -- some ways of looking at the data show mild warming, others show no warming. No particular way is "right" or "wrong" -- that is the nature of statistics.
To go further and call it a "falsehood" is absurd and cultish.
But it exactly fits the smug Green/Left worldview: "My opinions are facts, whereas your facts are merely opinions."
What rot. over the past 100 years the global surface temperature has slowly risen and shows absolutely no sign of cooling any time soon. Polar caps and sea ice is melting, Greenland is melting oceans are warming and becoming more acidic, climates are changing, weather is becoming more extreme, sea levels are rising. You would have to have rocks in your head to ignore all the evidence.
What fits the Green/Left are the facts support their opinion. The Right is catching up slowly. It is tiresome having to drag Conservatives into the 21st Century time and time again on every issue.
What rot, there were no accurate global surface temperature measurements 100 years ago and in fact scientists in the 70s were talking about "the coming ice age".
In fact 99% of scientists were not. Such reports published in the Press were dismissed immediately. Same old misinformation over and over again.
I was an environmental scientist at that time, so I guess I was one of the 1%. Strange though, all the scientists I worked with all thought an ice-age was possible. It seems you've swallowed the propaganda hook line and sinker.
In fact, the overwhelming scientific consensus in the 1970's supported global warming. Not global cooling. http://www.skepticalscience.com/What-1970s-science-said-about-global-cooling.html You could actually look this kind of thing up instead of parroting obvious falsehoods.
-
If Trump is as universally hated by the voters as he is by the establishment of both parties, then his "machine" is already stopped. The media regularly touts his 60%-plus "disapproval ratings" so it's a moot point....right?
On the other hand, Trump would represent a completely asymmetrical opponent with a seemingly popular message that both parties are a mess and in the pocket of the Powers That Be. Clinton will dust off the status quo, decades old playbook and campaign by assuring the voters that the only thing that stands in the way of utopia is placing her and the Democrats in complete power.
Really, has she promised that "utopia" somewhere in the past? Or have you managed to hack into her campaign plans? Or are you just bloviating? Again, this is the guy who wants to give a huge tax break to the rich. I don't think a lot of voters are aware of that, as yet. Probably not a real popular idea given the current state of things. Even a majority of Republicans when polled think taxes on the rich should be increased.
-
Trump will be the next President. Donald Trump would not be in the race unless he can win it. At least he has American interest at heart. He is not a career politician he is a business man who can repair a lot of what's wrong with America. The elites are scared to death of him because they can't control him, Donald Trump is Street smart and those who think someone will try to do a Kennedy on him, It's not going to happen. His policies in most case's make a whole lot of sense. As regards the Muslim issue, Just take a look at Europe and see the problems we have with them. We have them walking around in England establishing Muslim areas, Check it out on Youtube.
I love the fact he's so anti-PC. All political correctness is oppression of free speech.
Obama has been a complete disgrace for America and Hillary has proven to be untrustworthy.
And Trump would not have borrowed hugely to build his casino empire unless he was sure he could win there too. Yet, somehow..
-
<snip>
Why?
<snip>
Why? Because HRC is so much more worse. And why you cannot see it mystifies us.
Tell us what about Hillary's proposals are worse than those of Donald Trump's? I'm sure you are intimately acquainted with the details of the plans offered by both. Is it that you like the fact that taxes on the wealthy will be disproportionately lowered? Or that he has no plan for controlling the large financial interests that dominate wall street? In both these regards his plans definitely do differ from HRC's. Anyway, I look forward to your detailed analysis.
-
Fourth Time's A Charm: How Donald Trump Made Bankruptcy Work For HimTrump toast, maybe on top of those 5 bankrupt casinos ( I mean when odds are stacked AGAINST the bettors how does a casino go bankrupt "Art of the Deal"?
)But a bread line could be in order, Toasted Trump nuggets. Trumper loaf. Staler GOP but Trump sour ( cuz he's whinin about the process)dough.
Bring on the bread as the Trump business machine is waaaaaay overrated.
Here's an article about how Trump got a financial analyst fired for questioning the financial soundness of his casinos. And slandered him, too. You see, the analyst made the unforgivable error of telling the truth about Trump's financial shenanigans. The analyst fought back and won a big legal settlement against Trump.
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/04/donald-trump-marvin-roffman-casino-lawsuit-213855
-
-snip-
Also, I'm not sure when the 2012 Republican primary race stopped being a competition, but it was already long over at this stage of the primaries. So if the conclusion is foregone, you're going to have a lot smaller turnout. In a way, a large turnout is proof that Trump is actually less popular, since it's taking him so long to secure his victory.
Trump started with 17 people in the race. He still has two other contenders. In 2012 Romney had no such obstruction and at this point he was already all alone.
Trump still has two losers hanging on and together pulling about 40% of the vote even though they are mathematically eliminated. They are there because the Elites are backing them in a desperate ploy to try to stop Trump. They know that with Trump, their power and gravy train are over.
The people want Trump. The power brokers are panicked. We're seeing history made.
Cheers.
If Trump is such a threat to the wealthy and powerful, why is his tax plan so generous to them? And, I might add, to himself. The only time I got an answer to this in this forrum was from a Trump supporter who actually believed that Trump's tax plan would increase the amount of taxes the wealthy paid. Once I pointed out to him that this was false, he went mum on the subject. There's some kind of weird mental block operating here.
-
Trump passes Romney’s popular vote total, likely to break GOP record
With his five blowout wins Tuesday night, Donald Trump has passed Mitt Romney’s popular vote total from four years ago and is on a trajectory that could land him more Republican votes than any presidential candidate in modern history – by a lot... Trump surged to 9.9 million votes
Before you get too excited about these numbers, do try to keep in mind that the population of the united states has grown considerably. It's about 40 percent bigger than it was in 1980. On the other hand there has been some decline in registered republicans and democrats. But not enough to fully counterbalance the growth in population.
Also, I'm not sure when the 2012 Republican primary race stopped being a competition, but it was already long over at this stage of the primaries. So if the conclusion is foregone, you're going to have a lot smaller turnout. In a way, a large turnout is proof that Trump is actually less popular, since it's taking him so long to secure his victory.
-
Bombshell Poll: Nearly 20% Of Republicans Will Vote For Hillary Clinton If Trump Wins
The shamestream media never tires of saying stupid things. No one ever gets 100% of the vote.
If they weren't biased, they'd say more than 80% would support Trump. That's huge.
Cheers.
Actually, it was a really big deal in 1980 when polls showed Reagan winning a yuuuge 18 percent of the democratic vote. How do you reconcile that with roughly the same percentage of Republicans crossing over to vote Democratic? I guess the lame stream media never said Jimmy Carter getting more than 80 percent of the democratic vote was huge. And he went on to win the 1980 Presidential election?. Is that how you remember it?
In addition, in 2012 only 6 percent of Republicans crossed over to vote for Obama. 7 percent of Democrats crossed over to vote for Reagan
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/03/the-myth-of-the-reagan-democrat/475608/
-
Quite amazing the amount of posters here that think this WON'T be the case. At this point I'm calling troll on a number of them.
Who in their right mind would vote Republican? -snip-
Not vote Republican, vote to:
.
5. Get some control of the crazy debt and deficits. There's massive waste and fraud.
All over America there are empty and deteriorating factories and the neighborhoods they supported are deteriorating. They used to provide good jobs and can do it again. Even truck drivers and cab drivers who used to shuttle to those places understand what's happened.
Democrats understand what's happened. Women and minorities understand it.
Hillary is toast. She a huge part of the problem - a woman who's lived of the government and Wall Street all her life. Wait until she gets the wrath of Trump.
Cheers.
Do you even know that Trump has proposed a massive tax cut that hugely favors the wealthy?
"Donald Trump’s tax plan would cut federal revenue by $9.5 trillion over a decade and boost the after-tax incomes of the wealthiest households by an average of more than $1.3 million a year, according to an analysis released Tuesday."
"The gains are highly concentrated among the highest-income households, which would get a bigger percentage of the tax cuts than the share of taxes they pay now."
Definitely a champion of the working wan.
-
Thank you for the information.
Jordan, Turkey and Greece have taken more than that.
However the Gulf states as rich as they are have taken virtually none.
THE GULF STATES ARE TAKING SYRIAN REFUGEESBY ALEX NOWRASTEH12/4/15 AT 11:13 AMMany more Syrians are living in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States than at the beginning of the Syrian civil war in 2011.The World Bank reports that 1,000,000 Syrians resided in Saudi Arabia in 2013, a whopping 795 percent increase over 2010. There were 1,375,064 Syrian migrants living in the Gulf States in 2013, a 470 percent increase over 2010.Excluding Oman, the 2013 Syrian population in every Gulf State has increased dramatically since right before the beginning of the Syrian civil war.Yes, everyone should read that Newsweek article. All the way through. Because at the bottom of it, there's this note:
A note on the numbers and quotes here: The World Bank data may be limited, omit some return flow numbers, be inaccurate in other ways, or/and updated spreadsheets may show a completely different situation. I cannot verify the statements from the Gulf State countries because their publicly available government documents are in Arabic.
Apparently Newsweek doesn't think it's necessary for a reporter to be able to understand government documents or to hire a translator if the reporter can't.
And that Nabil Othman person, the spokesman for the UNHCR...it's very hard to track down any concrete info on him. There is a very prominent Saudi family whose family name is Othman. And he apparently organized a UNHCR tribute to the Saudi regime's humanitarianism in regards to refugees. http://www.arabnews.com/news/455709
-
The debacle in the UK... in Austria... Germany, indeed all of the EU, is a direct result of policies and agenda. None of this is because of an earthquake, tsunami, rock from space, or even refugee issues that could clearly have been avoided. Nor are the problems the result of the national aims and behaviors that had previously governed the independent states for many years- self interest. All of the problems are a direct result of elitists effecting social engineering polices without the consent of the governed. It cannot be overlooked that there appears to be a race to set in place irreversible population shifts (in the US as well) so that by the time constituency wake they are powerless.
Like Trump or not there is a parallel in all of this. The Brexit issue forces into the open the arrayed agents who are actually behind the the very problems. Whereas previously many actors remained opaque they are now transparent as they scream "the sky is falling" to prevent a Brexit (not unlike the agents who surface opposing Trump). Without question, the issues do not reduce only to immigration. Immigration is the symptom of the dissolution of a nation, not the underlying issue. The issue involves self determination, self interest, and ensuring national posterity. Immigration (and other facets) are simply the problems generated by the failed agenda of elitists colluding with special interests.
Its disingenuous to suggest the straw that broke the camel's back (immigration) would worsen if citizens seek to apply a remedy (circular fear). Fear! Always fear. Legitimacy/governance by fear, fracture, division, ridicule, ad naseum. These are the stewardship tools of Socialism/Progressivism.
"The debacle in the UK... in Austria... Germany, indeed all of the EU, is a direct result of policies and agenda. None of this is because of an earthquake, tsunami, rock from space, or even refugee issues that could clearly have been avoided. Nor are the problems the result of the national aims and behaviors that had previously governed the independent states for many years- self interest. All of the problems are a direct result of elitists effecting social engineering polices without the consent of the governed. It cannot be overlooked that there appears to be a race to set in place irreversible population shifts (in the US as well) so that by the time constituency wake they are powerless.:
Native Americans definitely agree with you.
-
Obviously. Out of a matter of interest does anyone know of a successful de-radicalization program, the Saudis don't have good results from what I hear and if they don't understand how Islam is misunderstood who does?
Does this mean that you believe that the Saudi do not misunderstand Islam? That their version of the religion is a decent one? How far in the bag are you for the Saudis?
-
Americans are watching Europe in horror. It's live on TV. They don't want any part of it. Build a wall. Control borders. Polish your rifles.
Cheers.
Not just that. Universal health care superior to the USA's, free or low cost university education, greater social mobility (you know, the right to rise). It's a nightmare over there.
-
Well, he does seem to be encouraging Hispanics with green cards to get naturalized.
And since Donald says Hispanics love him, this has got to be great news for the Trump campaign.
http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/news-columns-blogs/fabiola-santiago/article74064467.html
GO TRUMP!!!
-
Good News! There's a new organization of climate scientists that has begun to write detailed critiques of climate change articles. Here's the website
Spread the news.
And here's a link located in one critique to a great article in The New Scientist. It addresses the often cited falsehood that warming stopped in 1998. https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14527-climate-myths-global-warming-stopped-in-1998/
What makes it even better is that it was written in 2008 and subsequent years have only reinforced the accuracy of its observations.
-
Las Vegas odds are pretty one-sided today in almost every respect.
To be elected Potus
HRC has new odds of 3-10 or the probability percentage of 76.7% (plus 7% from April 8th) (Barack Obama went into election day 2012 at 1-5 or 83%)
Donald Trump has odds of 4-1 or the probability percentage of 20% (plus 5% from April 8th)
Ted Cruz has odds of 14-1 or the percentage of 6.6%
Bernie has odds of 16-1 or the percentage of 5.8%
John Kasich has odds of 25-1 or 3.8%
To be the D party nominee
HRC has new odds of 1-33 or the probability percentage of 97%
Bernie is at 12-1
To be the R party nominee
Donald Trump has odds of 2-5 or the probability percentage of 71.4% (plus 19% from April 8th)
Ted Cruz has odds of 5-2 or the percentage of 28.5% (minus 8% from April 8th)
K has odds of 12-1 or 7.6%
Winning Party on November 8th no candidate names
Democratic Party has odds of 1-3 or the probability of 75%
Republican Party has odds of 9-4 or the probability of 30.7%
Independent has odds of 50-1 (1.9%)
There's a long way to go yet and the conventions will mold the election from the end of July forward. Odds (probability) are a futures market that factors in all considerations to include the weather (the tiny probability of lightning striking). Odds taken with scientific polls and one's sense and analysis help to get a handle on where things seem to be going.
The only notable shifting of the odds has occurred in the R contest for the nomination, focused almost entirely on the probability of Trump succeeding. The odds now have Trump as the decidedly odds-on favorite. In the other contests, for Potus, D party nomination, winning party, the odds have remained consistent and have only widened.
Your "odds" are of course by a small ( infinitesimal ) number of the actual voters.
If HRC is the Dem. candidate, I expect many to come out simply to stop her becoming president ( it's personal ). All those GOP voters that don't like Trump may change their mind if she is likely to benefit. I guarantee the only thing an antiTrumpist hates more than Trump is HRC.
It's always a bad idea to project your feelings onto the electorate.
And then there's also the fact of increasing Hispanic voter registration and an increasing tilt among them towards Democrats. And reportedly, the possible candidacy of Trump has been a huge motivator in getting American citizen Hispanics to register to vote and Hispanics with green cards to become citizens and register to vote.
Here's the results of a recent poll: http://thehill.com/latino/277207-trump-effect-motivating-latinos-to-vote
According to it, Hispanics are much more excited about voting in 2016 than in 2012. And the number one motivator: Donald Trump. 48 percent say they're more motivated by the opportunity to vote against Trump. 16 percent give credit to the opportunity to vote for Hillary Clinton. 13 percent to Sanders. GO TRUMP!
There are lots more polls of Hispanic Americans out there and none that I found offer good news to the Trump camp.
-
Actually, when it comes to monetary policy, Trump seems to have a far better grasp of it than other Republicans.
-
Last election 22% of UK Jews voted Labour, with their current cluster of antisemitism problems they will be lucky to get half that next election. The progressive left in the US is heading in the same direction as their UK counterparts the only question in my mind is how long it takes US Jews to wake up and smell the coffee.
That prediction has been around for a long time now. And only about 31 percent of American Jews think the US isn't supportive enough of Israel. Which roughly corresponds to the percentage of Jews who call themselves Republicans.J'street are a Soros funded bunch of barely concealed BDS supporters. It won't be long before any Jew who still desires an independent Israel will feel obliged to vote Republican.
http://www.jstreetexposed.com/j-street-s-anti-israel-positions.html
The fact Biden spoke to Jstreet is hugely revealing of the current U.S stance.
http://www.pewforum.org/2016/03/08/comparisons-between-jews-in-israel-and-the-u-s/
http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/135130/death-jewish-liberalism-daniel-greenfield
http://www.frontpagemag.com/point/262493/70-russian-jews-may-vote-republican-2016-daniel-greenfield
Actually, you've got it in reverse. Someday the British Jews are going to wake up and realize that Labor is Israel's best friend and vote accordingly. And you know what else, this statement is just as baseless as yours. The difference is that I know it.
-
Any chance of the Saudis getting involved in Syria went south once the Russians got involved. They don't dare face anything that resembles real armed forces And does anyone else recall their bizarre anouncement of a Moslem coalition? A coalition that several of the alleged member states were surprised to find they were members of? If there are 3 things you can count of from the Saudis it's incompetence, cowardice and irresolution. Despite overwhelming firepower and short supply lines their armed farces can't even manage to knock out the Houthis. However, they have given Al Qaeda a nice foothold in southern Yemen.
I think this is a great video to watch regarding Syria. Per the video, Saudi Arabia has been sending money and weapons to the rebels via Turkey and Jordan.
And now seem to be wanting to send troops. Perhaps to counter the troops Iran already has there. A religions proxy war at it's worst.
These are the people that Saudi Arabia supports. In their ideology they're indistinguishable at best from Al Qaeda. At worst...Isil.
Also, if you read that article it seems to say, that it will be Saudi jets and Turkish troops who will be invading. If that happens. Not Saudi ground troops. And given Turkey's conduct in the past, most likely this is more a war about eliminating the Kurds, the most effective fighters against Isis, rather than about attacking Assad.
Also, it mentions the Free Syrian army. The group supported by the CIA. If ever a feckless assemblage of armed men didn't deserve the appellation "army", this one is it. http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016/01/04/can-the-free-syrian-army-get-back-on-its-feet-after-russias-intervention
-
How deluded you are. The Russians lost their main generals in Syria due to a massive car bomb, supposedly driven onto a base where only Russians were allowed. If you think a bunch of untrained Jihaddists could do this then go ahead, it was Arab special forces. Days later Putin announced the withdrawal of Russian forces. The Russians have lost Syria to the extent they are now supporting the Kurds in order to keep a foothold in the region. Incidentally Russian troops are poorly trained ill equipped clowns, the Saudis have been training special forces armed to the teeth with state of the art weapons since 2005.
Any chance of the Saudis getting involved in Syria went south once the Russians got involved. They don't dare face anything that resembles real armed forces And does anyone else recall their bizarre anouncement of a Moslem coalition? A coalition that several of the alleged member states were surprised to find they were members of? If there are 3 things you can count of from the Saudis it's incompetence, cowardice and irresolution. Despite overwhelming firepower and short supply lines their armed farces can't even manage to knock out the Houthis. However, they have given Al Qaeda a nice foothold in southern Yemen.
I'm not sure the Saudis were aiming primarily at US oil producers, rather they were trying to restrict oil revenues to Iran, though they were no doubt also mighty unhappy with the U.S perceived capitulation to Iran on the nuclear talks. Make of this what you will but behind the scenes I suspect the Saudis and GCC are already very active in Syria/Iraq and are working hand in glove with Israel. The source is admittedly fringe, but interesting nonetheless.The US hasn't been happy with SA for a long time. Most recently due to their actions to try to kill the new oil producers in the US. I've read some reports the Iran deal was done to punish SA (and Russia). Iran is pumping a bunch of oil and SA isn't happy about this. Their economy is hurting for sure.As for religion? It's what causing the mess in the Middle East. Pure and simple. IMHO.
http://www.thomaswictor.com/arab-troops-training/
Juxtapose the timing of this with Obama being in Saudi Arabia.
Some people never learn. Remember shock and awe and how the Iraqis wouldn't even know how to resist the Americans. And it was only because of the Iranians that Iraqis were able to resist. Maybe someday you'll learn how not to despise your opponents in battle. That's what distinguishes good strategists from the wishful thinkers. And didn't Isis recently abandon Palmyra? It wasn't those mythical Arab elite troops that did it. And last I heard, Aleppo was on the way to falling to the Syrian army. Clearly, you're channeling reports from opposite land.
-
An Arab that excels in swimming is rare indeed, as rare as an African wining a skiing championship
or even rarer, a Thai person with a common sense.....
.. or you making an unbigoted comment.
-
I have to wonder how many illegal aliens passed through the same tunnel and for how long?
At least hundreds, if not thousands. After all, why wouldn't narcotraficantes want lots and lots of people to know about the secret location of their costly and doubtless hugely profitable tunnel. Makes perfect sense if you think like Donald Trump.
)
UN: delegates set to sign historic climate change deal
in World News
Posted
Not sure about Greenland? In Greenland the glaciers are retreating rapidly. Where do you think that water goes? Into the ocean. What exactly are you not sure about? And it's not only Greenland. All around the world the glaciers are in retreat. All that water flowing into the sea. And not just that. The oceans are getting warmer. As the oceans get warmer, the water expands in volume. It's called thermal expansion.
And what's more, why are the glaciers in retreat all around the world? Is it because
a) the world is getting colder
c) the world is getting warmer