Global Warming To Hit Thailand's Rice Production

[Spee]

No matter what evidence and support I cited, they refused to look at new information.

I don't think there has ever been anyone who has "refused to look at new information." However, when the new information is fabricated and is published more as propaganda with a clear political agenda, rather than politically independent science, it is quite easy to cast it aside as so much drivel. One needs to look no further than NASA, which was once a fantastic bastion of aerospace research. Now it is being turned into a propaganda wing. The same could be said of other research institutions in the UK and elsewhere.

[ding]

No matter what evidence and support I cited, they refused to look at new information.

I don't think there has ever been anyone who has "refused to look at new information." However, when the new information is fabricated and is published more as propaganda with a clear political agenda, rather than politically independent science, it is quite easy to cast it aside as so much drivel. One needs to look no further than NASA, which was once a fantastic bastion of aerospace research. Now it is being turned into a propaganda wing. The same could be said of other research institutions in the UK and elsewhere.

I didn't screen capture all my debates on other fora, but it IS my experience and it happened a LOT. You can feel I'm misleading if you want. That's alright. So please provide evidence that the info I cited is false in point #1. The post made false claims and I refuted one, briefly.

"However, when the new information is fabricated and is published more as propaganda with a clear political agenda, rather than politically independent science, it is quite easy to cast it aside as so much drivel."

I'm sorry, that's just a blind smear about some unknown information. Then you call it propaganda and drivel. In fact, big oil and other industries are behind quasi-science and research. And THAT has a political agenda, and is therefore -propaganda.

I'll add you claims about NASA, but we're on point #1 and I'd rather get to point #2 in the wings.

[RickBradford]

So, are you going to stop the pissing match and refute my support?

Oh, very well, if you insist.

You stated:

Antarctic ice is not growing -that's just false

Not according to The National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC). Their most recent report (March 3rd) states:

"Overall, the Antarctic is showing small positive trends in total extent. For example, the trend in February extent is now +3.1% per decade."

Refuted, or what?

You might do better if you read what the scientists are currently saying rather than rehashing tired old factoids from the Global Warming Alarmist's Toytown Book of Rubbish.

[teatree]

journal Science, Antarctic Ice Sheet Is Melting

World's largest ice sheet melting faster than expected

guardian.co.uk, Sunday 22 November 2009 18.00 GMT

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009...-ice-sheet-nasa

The East Antarctic ice sheet, which makes up three-quarters of the continent's 14,000 sq km, is losing around 57bn tonnes of ice a year into surrounding waters, according to a satellite survey of the region.

_________________________________________________

Collapse Of Antarctic Ice Sheet Would Likely Put Washington, D.C. Largely Underwater

ScienceDaily (Feb. 6, 2009)

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/...90205142132.htm

The catastrophic increase in sea level, already projected to average between 16 and 17 feet around the world, would be almost 21 feet in such places as Washington, D.C., scientists say, putting it largely underwater. Many coastal areas would be devastated.

________________________________________________

Melting of West Antarctic Ice Sheet may affect Earth's rotation

May 22, 2009

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/272938

A study in the journal Science has found that the melting of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet would change the focus of the planet's gravitational field and sea levels would rise disproportionately around North America and the Indian Ocean.

The West Antarctic Ice Sheet, along with the East Antarctic Ice Sheet and Greenland, is one of the three great ice sheets of the world. Of the three, the West Antarctic Ice Sheet is believed to be the most unstable, because much of its base rests on rock that is below sea level. It’s thought that this fact makes it vulnerable to melting and relatively rapid disintegration.

The following figures are for the Antarctic sea ice extent for most recent available month (February 2010) and the corresponding month in the most distant year there are records for (February 1979).

Antarctic Sea Ice extent:

February 1979 total extent - 3.1 million sq km

February 2010 total extent - 3.2 million sq km

source - National Snow and Ice Data Centre (NSIDC)

The satellite images can be viewed at the NISDC website

http://nsidc.org/cgi-bin/bist/bist.pl?anno...&year1=1979

Clearly the Antarctic is not in danger of imminent collapse.

The articles you posted are just a few of thousands pumped out each year by alarmist writers who rely on the reader to take what they read as being fact without ever actually looking into the claims being made.

Fortunately, more and more people are demanding evidence and facts not just scary sounding headlines from environmental activists.

Edited March 9, 2010 by teatree

[Johpa]

AGW science works like this. We throw the unpopular woman in the lake: If she drowns, she was innocent. If she floats and survives, she’s a witch and we burn her at the stake. We can't lose. Whatever happens, it's "climate change. "

Future generations will relegate the AGW zealots to the annals of history along with millenial cults, domesday soothsayers, Jonestown followers and all the rest of the delusional, easily-led masses of people that have ever congregated under a rubric of doom.

It is a sad day indeed when we see non-scientists, who are perhaps otherwise rational people, conclude that a significant number of members of the scientific community, some would argue a large majority of the global scientific community, are psychos who deserved to be lumped together with an assortment of irrational behaviors.

And I believe that the "AGW" hypothesis, that human activity causes global warming, is not based upon anything remotely similar to medieval witch hunting practices but based upon statistical analysis.

But the really interesting question to ask is why would those who dispute the AGW hypothesis with an alternative hypothesis be so adamant given the most likely outcomes? If the AGW is correct then we avert tremendous suffering by taking steps to reduce the warming trend, if it exists. And if the hypothesis is wrong and we still act then we get a more energy efficient and cleaner world. There is nothing to lose by accepting the AGW hypothesis, even if it turns out to be wrong, and yet there is a tremendous amount to lose by not responding if the hypothesis is correct. I just can't get my finger on the motivations of those who come under the classification of "deniers". I just can't figure out the answer to the question that always needs to be asked in such situations, "cui bono?".

[nisakiman]

AGW science works like this. We throw the unpopular woman in the lake: If she drowns, she was innocent. If she floats and survives, she's a witch and we burn her at the stake. We can't lose. Whatever happens, it's "climate change. "

Future generations will relegate the AGW zealots to the annals of history along with millenial cults, domesday soothsayers, Jonestown followers and all the rest of the delusional, easily-led masses of people that have ever congregated under a rubric of doom.

It is a sad day indeed when we see non-scientists, who are perhaps otherwise rational people, conclude that a significant number of members of the scientific community, some would argue a large majority of the global scientific community, are psychos who deserved to be lumped together with an assortment of irrational behaviors.

And I believe that the "AGW" hypothesis, that human activity causes global warming, is not based upon anything remotely similar to medieval witch hunting practices but based upon statistical analysis.

But the really interesting question to ask is why would those who dispute the AGW hypothesis with an alternative hypothesis be so adamant given the most likely outcomes? If the AGW is correct then we avert tremendous suffering by taking steps to reduce the warming trend, if it exists. And if the hypothesis is wrong and we still act then we get a more energy efficient and cleaner world. There is nothing to lose by accepting the AGW hypothesis,

even if it turns out to be wrong, and yet there is a tremendous amount to lose by not responding if the hypothesis is correct. I just can't get my finger on the motivations of those who come under the classification of "deniers". I just can't figure out the answer to the question that always needs to be asked in such situations, "cui bono?".

What we have to lose, Johpa, is the ability to remain economically productive. What we have to lose is countless trillions of dollars wasted on a chimera. Do you really have the arrogance to believe that we can control the natural cycles of climate? What we have to lose is to consign the third-world nations to permanent poverty. Human advancement is inextricably linked to availability of electricity. Forcing nations to use "renewables" is the kiss of death to a poor country. We can't even do it in the west. What hope does a country in Central Africa have?

Go back to your dream world, where sugar and spice and all things nice rules....

[Garry9999]

AGW science works like this. We throw the unpopular woman in the lake: If she drowns, she was innocent. If she floats and survives, she’s a witch and we burn her at the stake. We can't lose. Whatever happens, it's "climate change. "

Future generations will relegate the AGW zealots to the annals of history along with millenial cults, domesday soothsayers, Jonestown followers and all the rest of the delusional, easily-led masses of people that have ever congregated under a rubric of doom.

But the really interesting question to ask is why would those who dispute the AGW hypothesis with an alternative hypothesis be so adamant given the most likely outcomes? If the AGW is correct then we avert tremendous suffering by taking steps to reduce the warming trend, if it exists. And if the hypothesis is wrong and we still act then we get a more energy efficient and cleaner world. There is nothing to lose by accepting the AGW hypothesis, even if it turns out to be wrong, and yet there is a tremendous amount to lose by not responding if the hypothesis is correct. I just can't get my finger on the motivations of those who come under the classification of "deniers". I just can't figure out the answer to the question that always needs to be asked in such situations, "cui bono?".

Two interesting aspects of the AGW debate are:-

1. Nuclear power is now back on the agenda, has a green alternative to fossil fuels.

2. Two oil wars have failed.

[Spee]

In fact, big oil and ............

As comedian Bill Engvall says .... "Here's your sign."

In other words, using the term "big oil" indicates possession of a very jaded and biased point of view. Refer to the infamous JR threads of yore.

So "big oil" does this ... and "big oil" causes that .......... "Here's your sign."

Edited March 9, 2010 by Spee

[RickBradford]

There is nothing to lose by accepting the AGW hypothesis, even if it turns out to be wrong,

Yes, that is exactly the mentality of the AGW scientists, and why they continue to push their bogus science on us.

As Phil Jones told the Calgary Herald in 1988: "”No matter if the science is all phony, there are collateral environmental benefits…. climate change [provides] the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world.”

Phil Jones wants climate change to be accepted, no matter if the science is all phony. And he's in a very good position to ensure that it is -- or he was, until late last year.

This is the fundamental thing the AGW crowd don't understand; it is always bad to accept something which is factually wrong, just because you want to believe in it. That is a truly medieval, unenlightened, cultist, and witch-hunting attitude, where the belief comes first; the methods come later.

So, these scientists initially formed the belief that AGW is bad for the planet. They wanted to push this hypothesis "even if the science is wrong". Now we know why they have been behaving as they have.

And that is exactly why we have arrived at the present position. A cabal of AGW scientists have spent 20 years trying to hide and obfuscate their data and methods because they know they have been pushing fake science in pursuit of a political agenda, while thousands of other scientists are drawing out the multiple errors in their work, despite dogged delaying by the AGW fanatics.

As for the actual practice of accepting AGW, even though it is wrong, you might want to recall the biofuels scam of 2007. In pursuit of AGW-driven 'clean energy', very large amounts of agricultural land were taken out of food production and pressed into biofuel production. Partly as a result of this, world food prices doubled, which was a nuisance in London, but deadly in Lagos.

I'm not going to estimate how many people died as a result of this, but it was enough for the the UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, Jean Ziegler, to call using food for fuel a "crime against humanity."

"Accepting the AGW hypothesis, even if it turns out to be wrong" is to show moral bankruptcy of a high order and a sneering contempt for the poor people of this planet.

Edited March 10, 2010 by RickBradford

[thaihome]

...

"Accepting the AGW hypothesis, even if it turns out to be wrong" is to show moral bankruptcy of a high order and a sneering contempt for the poor people of this planet.

It is also another step in what these people really want which is everyone goes back to some pre-industrial revolution time and lives like people did back then. Of course, people back then only lived to be about 35 and all but a very few had truly miserable lives by any definition.

TH

[ding]

"National and international science academies and scientific societies have assessed the current scientific opinion, in particular on recent global warming. These assessments have largely followed or endorsed the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) position of January 2001 that states:

An increasing body of observations gives a collective picture of a warming world and other changes in the climate system... There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities.[1]

No scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion since the American Association of Petroleum Geologists adopted its current position in 2007.[2] Some organisations hold non-committal positions."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_op..._climate_change

[ding]

...

"Accepting the AGW hypothesis, even if it turns out to be wrong" is to show moral bankruptcy of a high order and a sneering contempt for the poor people of this planet.

It is also another step in what these people really want which is everyone goes back to some pre-industrial revolution time and lives like people did back then. Of course, people back then only lived to be about 35 and all but a very few had truly miserable lives by any definition.

TH

False, new technology is needed to meet demands and retain the lone survivable biosphere among the billions of planets that are not habitable. Nobody want to go back in time except climate change deniers.

[ding]

So, are you going to stop the pissing match and refute my support?

Oh, very well, if you insist.

You might do better if you read what the scientists are currently saying rather than rehashing tired old factoids from the Global Warming Alarmist's Toytown Book of Rubbish.

PRETTY PICTURE

The most comprehensive picture of the rapidly thinning glaciers along the coastline of both the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets has been created using satellite lasers. The findings are an important step forward in the quest to make more accurate predictions for future sea level rise.

The authors conclude that this ‘dynamic thinning’ of glaciers now reaches all latitudes in Greenland, has intensified on key Antarctic coastlines, is penetrating far into the ice sheets’ interior and is spreading as ice shelves thin by ocean-driven melt. Ice shelf collapse has triggered particularly strong thinning that has endured for decades.

British Antarctic Survey article

[ding]

What's your point? To look at one specific area and determine that it is consensus? That's why the MMGW farce has gone as far as it has.

Places that rarely get snow have recorded record snowfalls this year. It would be truly hysterical if the threat of indoctrinative brainwashing of ...

Recent Antarctic ice mass loss from radar interferometry and regional climate modelling

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v1/n2/abs/ngeo102.html

Large uncertainties remain in the current and future contribution to sea level rise from Antarctica. Climate warming may increase snowfall in the continent's interior1, 2, 3, but enhance glacier discharge at the coast where warmer air and ocean temperatures erode the buttressing ice shelves4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11. Here, we use satellite interferometric synthetic-aperture radar observations from 1992 to 2006 covering 85% of Antarctica's coastline to estimate the total mass flux into the ocean. We compare the mass fluxes from large drainage basin units with interior snow accumulation calculated from a regional atmospheric climate model for 1980 to 2004. In East Antarctica, small glacier losses in Wilkes Land and glacier gains at the mouths of the Filchner and Ross ice shelves combine to a near-zero loss of 4plusminus61 Gt yr-1. In West Antarctica, widespread losses along the Bellingshausen and Amundsen seas increased the ice sheet loss by 59% in 10 years to reach 132plusminus60 Gt yr-1 in 2006. In the Peninsula, losses increased by 140% to reach 60plusminus46 Gt yr-1 in 2006. Losses are concentrated along narrow channels occupied by outlet glaciers and are caused by ongoing and past glacier acceleration. Changes in glacier flow therefore have a significant, if not dominant impact on ice sheet mass balance.

1. University of California Irvine, Earth System Science, Irvine, California 92697, USA

2. Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, California 91109, USA

3. Centro de Estudios Cientificos, Arturo Prat 514, Valdivia, Chile

4. University of Bristol, Bristol BS8 1SS, UK

5. Institute for Marine and Atmospheric Research (IMAU), Utrecht University, 3584 CC Utrecht, The Netherlands

6. University of Missouri-Columbia, Columbia, Missouri 65211, USA

7. Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute (KNMI), 3732 GK De Bilt, The Netherlands

[ding]

In the month of February, there was snow on the ground in every state in the US.

Al Gore was due to give a MMGW speech in Washington DC in February but had to cancel because of the 40 inches of snow that fell.

It's a comedy of errors. It would be truly hysterical if the threat of indoctrinative brainwashing of today's school children wasn't so serious.

The scientists compared the rates of change in elevation of both fast-flowing and slow-flowing ice. In Greenland for example they studied 111 fast-moving glaciers and found 81 thinning at rates twice that of slow-flowing ice at the same altitude. They found that ice loss from many glaciers in both Antarctica and Greenland is greater than the rate of snowfall further inland.

* 43 million satellite measurements of the Antarctic and 7 million of Greenland over a 5 year period (2003-2007)

Dr Hamish Pritchard

Professor David Vaughan

(I agree that irony and odd tales are funny. But there's nothing funny about what lies ahead if we refuse to accept overwhelming evidence that disagrees with our entrenched opinion and thought)

[thaihome]

...

"Accepting the AGW hypothesis, even if it turns out to be wrong" is to show moral bankruptcy of a high order and a sneering contempt for the poor people of this planet.

It is also another step in what these people really want which is everyone goes back to some pre-industrial revolution time and lives like people did back then. Of course, people back then only lived to be about 35 and all but a very few had truly miserable lives by any definition.

TH

False, new technology is needed to meet demands and retain the lone survivable biosphere among the billions of planets that are not habitable. Nobody want to go back in time except climate change deniers.

I agree that new technologies are needed and people have been trying to make them work and be cost efficient for a long time. But how are carbon caps (and the associated trading) going to make these new technologies work?

TH

[ding]

Still on 'Antarctic Ice Sheets Growing' refutation. Sorry thiahome I can barely do one thing at a time.

[ding]

For AGW supporters, any kind of weather can be attributed to "climate change". Hotter=climate change. Colder=climate change. Wetter, drier=climate change. Flood, drought, more butterflies, less butterflies, earthquakes even.

AGW science works like this. We throw the unpopular woman in the lake: If she drowns, she was innocent. If she floats and survives, she’s a witch and we burn her at the stake. We can't lose. Whatever happens, it's "climate change. "

Future generations will relegate the AGW zealots to the annals of history along with millenial cults, domesday soothsayers, Jonestown followers and all the rest of the delusional, easily-led masses of people that have ever congregated under a rubric of doom.

Finding out what is actually happening to the ice is not easy. Radar measurements of the height of the ice over parts of the continent suggest that the huge East Antarctic ice sheet grew slightly between 1992 and 2003.

A more recent study based on satellite measurements of gravity over the entire continent suggests that while the ice sheets in the interior of Antarctica are growing thicker, even more ice is being lost from the peripheries. The study concluded that there was a net loss of ice between 2002 and 2005, adding 0.4 millimetres per year to sea levels... Most of the ice was lost from the smaller West Antarctic ice sheet.

-NewScientist, environment

___________________________________

THE first survey of gravity changes caused by the Antarctic ice sheet has confirmed that it is shrinking at an alarming rate.

The result comes from the Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE), a pair of NASA/German satellites. The twin satellites fly in formation, 220 kilometres apart, and measure small changes in Earth's gravity caused by shifts in the distribution of its mass.

Isabella Velicogna and John Wahr from the University of Colorado in Boulder analysed GRACE observations and found that between April 2002 and August 2005 the Antarctic ice sheet shrank by 150 cubic kilometres annually.

Most of the lost mass came from the west Antarctic ice sheet. Velicogna and Wahr calculate that the melting contributed about 0.4 millimetres to global sea-level rise each year (Science, DOI: 10.1126/science.1123785).

[RickBradford]

Why do the AGW cranks always spam the forum with repetitive multiple posts?

Is it some agit-prop technique they are taught?

[ding]

Please refute the information and refrain from shooting the messenger for the message-

G'night all.

And remember, gravity is just a theory!

Edited March 10, 2010 by ding

[RickBradford]

That was a message? Any more and you could have published it as a novel.

What information do you want to see refuted? There was so much guff in there I couldn't work out what your point was.

[RickBradford]

Actually, I retract the above post. I don't want to know what information you want refuted.

It's more important to look at the big picture.

AGW supporters need to demonstrate all of the following:

1) that global warming is occurring, and is predominantly man-made

2) that such changes are significantly detrimental

3) that there are effective actions we can take to prevent those changes

I won't spend time debating satellite observations which bear on none of the above bar possibly the first half of point 1).

Thai rice production will take a big hit this year because of the ongoing drought, and I expect there will be no shortage of alarmists crying "global warming."

It's a pity, because it deflects people's thoughts away from things they might be doing to ameliorate the immediate situation. Instead, many find themselves thrust into the position of the helpless victim of these mighty global forces, and are disempowered to act. Others are told they must sacrifice their livelihood for the sake of this bogus threat and and rendered helpless.

Edited March 10, 2010 by RickBradford

[ding]

Actually, I retract the above post. I don't want to know what information you want refuted.

It's more important to look at the big picture.

AGW supporters need to demonstrate all of the following:

1) that global warming is occurring, and is predominantly man-made

2) that such changes are significantly detrimental

3) that there are effective actions we can take to prevent those changes

I won't spend time debating satellite observations which bear on none of the above bar possibly the first half of point 1).

Thai rice production will take a big hit this year because of the ongoing drought, and I expect there will be no shortage of alarmists crying "global warming."

It's a pity, because it deflects people's thoughts away from things they might be doing to ameliorate the immediate situation. Instead, many find themselves thrust into the position of the helpless victim of these mighty global forces, and are disempowered to act. Others are told they must sacrifice their livelihood for the sake of this bogus threat and and rendered helpless.

A false claim was made and the typical bullying tactics of climate change deniers were present. I refuted your claim and the typical tactics of "agitprop" climate change deniers were resorted to;

Accusing those trying to have serious discussion of being agitators and propagandists when that is exactly what you guys are doing - pointing the finger of accusation while 3 fingers are pointing right back at you.

And trying to sidetrack debate when your bogus claim is called out.

And the usual smearing, name-calling, and bullying that the intentionally ignorant resort to.

We're done. Carry on in your deluded world, pretending to be the victim. It's sad that you are so falsely indoctrinated, but you are a man and are responsible to accept reality.

Hey- you can't build a wall or fence to keep out climate change. You can't relocate and move away from it. And no amount of money will protect you nor your progeny from what will come.

[RickBradford]

Note the classic psychological attributes of your typical AGW supporter:

1. Victimhood

A false claim was made and the typical bullying tactics of climate change deniers were present

Nonsense. I simply said that NSIDC disagreed with you. If you think that being told you're wrong is 'bullying', you fit in well with AGW mainstream thinking. Did the nasty man say a bad word? It must those horrible well-funded skeptics again.....

2. Projection

And the usual smearing, name-calling, and bullying that the intentionally ignorant resort to.

We know who does the name calling about Nazi appeasers, incestuous criminals and flat-earthers, so we know who the intentionally ignorant truly are.

3. Delusion

And trying to sidetrack debate when your bogus claim is called out.

I didn't make any claims; you did.

4. Denial

you can't build a wall or fence to keep out climate change. You can't relocate and move away from it.

Indeed not. Because as you have been told, it's not happening, in any special or catastrophic way.

Edited March 11, 2010 by RickBradford

[canuckamuck]

Ding I can see why you found frustration in previous years trying to get people to read your material. You have a clear inability to present an argument in an understandable and clear and concise format.

Dropping 4 or 5 posts in a row with various types of research pasted in, is like dog that barks all night, there might be something there, but no one gets up to look.

Why don't you get your best evidence together about your best point, and present in an efficient matter with a clear argument. Provide a couple of links (not pasted article fragments) to show your source.

I think you will see there will be plenty of people ready to make a proper argument

But if you are going to create a major research project for us, you won't many here that will bother to read it all.

[mridiot]

Ding I can see why you found frustration in previous years trying to get people to read your material. You have a clear inability to present an argument in an understandable and clear and concise format.

Dropping 4 or 5 posts in a row with various types of research pasted in, is like dog that barks all night, there might be something there, but no one gets up to look.

Why don't you get your best evidence together about your best point, and present in an efficient matter with a clear argument. Provide a couple of links (not pasted article fragments) to show your source.

I think you will see there will be plenty of people ready to make a proper argument

But if you are going to create a major research project for us, you won't many here that will bother to read it all.

As stated earlier, certainly I am a "nutjob." And like other nutjobs, I feel like it is a conspiracy.

The reason is simple: my ice cream cone is not melting fast enough and it still gets cold in the winter.

I am sure the scientists have no response to that.

I must confess that it is easy being a moron. I recommend it for all those who want to destroy the planet. Just ignore reality.

Oooops........I did it again. I meant to say, help the planet and twist reality.

And read the most important book of our skeptic's club: The Idiot's Guide to Becoming a Global Warming Denier.

Don't worry if you are stupid as hel_l and know nothing about science or global warming or climate change.

The book will teach you what to do and say.

It will teach you how to avoid responding to anything that appears to be real science.

I am getting confused, what is the subject of this thread?

Global warming? Rice? Thailand? Ding?

Ding seems to be the only one with a brain..........the rest of you are simply talking to yourselves over and over and over again.........getting really strange here.

Somebody said doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result is the definition of insanity.

Oh..........sorry, I am not supposed to tell the truth..........read that in The Idiot's Guide to Becoming a Global Warming Denier.

[teatree]

Still on 'Antarctic Ice Sheets Growing' refutation. Sorry thiahome I can barely do one thing at a time.

Perhaps you could visit the NSIDC website and show us the evidence that the Antarctic is going to collapse in the near future.

Here is the link - http://nsidc.org/cgi-bin/bist/bist.pl?conf...mp;submit=Go%21

You can compare satellite images of the Antarctic of almost any month/year going back to when records began in 1978. The images show sea ice extent and sea ice concentration - any worrying signs of melting would be shown up on the images.

Please be specific and show us the trends you think are signs that the Antarctic is soon to collapse.

[RickBradford]

JR! Welcome back!

Nice avatar!

[Garry9999]

[RickBradford]

And a nice Thai-language resource for your Thai friends whose local language press has not fully aired the AGW scam.