The Global warming blow-hards...

...are reassessing, huh?

This, from the U.K. Telegraph:

UN downgrades man's impact on the climate

Richard Gray, Science Correspondent, Sunday Telegraph


Mankind has had less effect on global warming than previously supposed, a United Nations report on climate change will claim next year.

The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says there can be little doubt that humans are responsible for warming the planet, but the organisation has reduced its overall estimate of this effect by 25 per cent.

In a final draft of its fourth assessment report, to be published in February, the panel reports that the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has accelerated in the past five years. It also predicts that temperatures will rise by up to 4.5 C during the next 100 years, bringing more frequent heat waves and storms.

Climate change sceptics are expected to seize on the revised figures as evidence that action to combat global warming is less urgent.

Scientists insist that the lower estimates for sea levels and the human impact on global warming are simply a refinement due to better data on how climate works rather than a reduction in the risk posed by global warming.

One leading UK climate scientist, who asked not to be named due to the sensitivity surrounding the report before it is published, said: "The bottom line is that the climate is still warming while our greenhouse gas emissions have accelerated, so we are storing up problems for ourselves in the future."

The IPCC report, seen by The Sunday Telegraph, has been handed to the Government for review before publication.

It warns that carbon dioxide emissions have risen during the past five years by three per cent, well above the 0.4 per cent a year average of the previous two decades. The authors also state that the climate is almost certain to warm by at least 1.5 C during the next 100 years.

Such a rise would be enough to take average summer temperatures in Britain to those seen during the 2003 heatwave, when August temperatures reached a record-breaking 38 C. Unseasonable warmth this year has left many Alpine resorts without snow by the time the ski season started.

Britain can expect more storms of similar ferocity to those that wreaked havoc across the country last week, even bringing a tornado to north-west London.

The IPCC has been forced to halve its predictions for sea-level rise by 2100, one of the key threats from climate change. It says improved data have reduced the upper estimate from 34 in to 17 in.

It also says that the overall human effect on global warming since the industrial revolution is less than had been thought, due to the unexpected levels of cooling caused by aerosol sprays, which reflect heat from the sun.

Large amounts of heat have been absorbed by the oceans, masking the warming effect.

Prof Rick Battarbee, the director of the Environmental Change Research Centre at University College London, warned these masking effects had helped to delay global warming but would lead to larger changes in the future.

He said: "The oceans have been acting like giant storage heaters by trapping heat and carbon dioxide. They might be bit of a time-bomb as they have been masking the real effects of the carbon dioxide we have been releasing into the atmosphere.

"People are very worried about what will happen in 2030 to 2050, as we think that at that point the oceans will no longer be able to absorb the carbon dioxide being emitted. It will be a tipping point and that is why it is now critical to act to counter any acceleration that will occur when this happens."

The report paints a bleak picture for future generations unless greenhouse gas emissions are reduced. It predicts that the climate will warm by 0.2 C a decade for the next two decades if emissions continue at current levels.

The report states that snow cover in mountainous regions will contract and permafrost in polar regions will decline.

However, Julian Morris, executive director of the International Policy Network, urged governments to be cautious. "There needs to be better data before billions of pounds are spent on policy measures that may have little impact," he said.

Oh, and here's something else...the link for the entire summary follows:

Livestock’s long shadow
Environmental issues and options


By H. Steinfeld, P. Gerber, T. Wassenaar, V. Castel, M. Rosales, C. de Haan - 2006, 390 pp

Summary: This report aims to assess the full impact of the livestock sector on environmental problems, along with potential technical and policy approaches to mitigation.

The assessment is based on the most recent and complete data available, taking into account direct impacts, along with the impacts of feed crop agriculture required for livestock production.

The livestock sector emerges as one of the top two or three most significant contributors to the most serious environmental problems, at every scale from local to global.

The findings of this report suggest that it should be a major policy focus when dealing with problems of land degradation, climate change and air pollution, water shortage and water pollution, and loss of biodiversity.

Livestock’s contribution to environmental problems is on a massive scale and its potential contribution to their solution is equally large.

The impact is so significant that it needs to be addressed with urgency. Major reductions in impact could be achieved at reasonable cost.

The panel, however, has lowered predictions of how much sea levels will rise in comparison with its last report in 2001.

http://www.virtualcentre.org/en/libr...701E00.htm#sum

Two strategies are suggested by these reports:

1. Eat beef at every meal in the hope we will make cows extinct.

2. Spend more money to acquire "better data", as better data has proven most effective in mitigating the "doom" content in doomsday forecasting relative to global warming.

You know it makes sense.

Yep I agree.

Just thought, we're eating too much and endangering fish, yet giving them more room to swim around and reproduce in. Sigh.

Furthermore, anyway... During that research, they can get people to skateboard, show them how fun it is and that more. Then place more Wind Turbines out in the sea, ironically of which theres more area to choose and place them in now, and more than just a few else it's pointless. That way protesters that they're not doing enough (kinda true though) can't complain.

Finally, invest more sensibly into researching at the same time as the data, Quick, Cheap, and Affordable alternative fuel to deal with the current problems. Actually, kind of off topic now I guess, but I heard randomly the other day there's a blood protein in, us, that could be used to produce hydrogen. Weird.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Confluence

...alternative fuel...

---

Exactly, and a million reasons to do it, even apart from environmental concerns.

Now. ;)

Another cut and paste job j2?

What do YOU think?

We know you're an advocate of doing nothing, as your lords and masters the oil companies suggest, but what if? What if you're wrong? Are you gonna stand up and apologise to your grandchildren for doing nothing despite all the warnings?

What people like you fail to mention is this, if we clean up our act and are subsequently proved wrong, we have lost NOTHING, if we fail to act, as you believe we should, and are proved wrong, we lose EVERYTHING.

Here's a little cut and paste from your own cut and paste ...

Scientists insist that the lower estimates for sea levels and the human impact on global warming are simply a refinement due to better data on how climate works rather than a reduction in the risk posed by global warming.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ava Estelle

Another cut and paste job j2?

What do YOU think?

We know you're an advocate of doing nothing, as your lords and masters the oil companies suggest, but what if? What if you're wrong? Are you gonna stand up and apologise to your grandchildren for doing nothing despite all the warnings?

What people like you fail to mention is this, if we clean up our act and are subsequently proved wrong, we have lost NOTHING, if we fail to act, as you believe we should, and are proved wrong, we lose EVERYTHING.

Here's a little cut and paste from your own cut and paste ...

Scientists insist that the lower estimates for sea levels and the human impact on global warming are simply a refinement due to better data on how climate works rather than a reduction in the risk posed by global warming.

---

the way i read it, it was saying it exists and it's bad, just not as bad as we previously thought.

I read somewhere recently that it exists, and it's bad, and it's worse than we previously thought, because of solar dimming :unsure:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Barbarossa

I read somewhere recently that it exists, and it's bad, and it's worse than we previously thought, because of solar dimming :unsure:

---

apparently it's like a balancing act and too far either way will cause major pwnage. that's what the telly said anyway.


there's hundreds of theories, but the "liberals trying to undermine the iraq war effort" seems the most rediculous

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ava Estelle

What people like you fail to mention is this, if we clean up our act and are subsequently proved wrong, we have lost NOTHING[/I]

---

We are out nothing except time, resources, energy and whatnot that could have been applied to, oh I don't know, say world hunger, aids. You know, the little things.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HeavyMetalParkingLot

We are out nothing except time, resources, energy and whatnot that could have been applied to, oh I don't know, say world hunger, aids. You know, the little things.

---

As if the money would be spent on that instead! Don't make me laugh :dry:


Oh, controlling climate change will help with world hunger, btw ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HeavyMetalParkingLot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ava Estelle

What people like you fail to mention is this, if we clean up our act and are subsequently proved wrong, we have lost NOTHING[/I]

---

We are out nothing except time, resources, energy and whatnot that could have been applied to, oh I don't know, say world hunger, aids. You know, the little things.

---

Oh come on, talk sense man, tell your excuse for a president about world hunger and aids, because he spends enough money to combat those things every WEEK on wars.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ava Estelle

Oh come on, talk sense man, tell your excuse for a president about world hunger and aids, because he spends enough money to combat those things every WEEK on wars.

---

Because obviously it is the president's job to end WORLD hunger and aids. Wait a second, I thought you wanted the US to mind it's own business.....

In a few years time, "they" will be wanting us to use fossil fuels again..to stave off the approaching ice age...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HeavyMetalParkingLot

Wait a second, I thought you wanted the US to mind it's own business.....

---

Why don't you just make things up, seeing as you have nothing constructive to say ... oh wait, you just did!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ava Estelle

Why don't you just make things up, seeing as you have nothing constructive to say ... oh wait, you just did!

---

And this kids, is what is referred to as "the pot calling the kettle black".

As far as I can see, the case for global warming is still far from proven.
And I don't buy the "yes, but what if it's right, think of the children" scaremongering either.

Even if you accept the need for action, so called "green taxes" are a con. In order to be effective they would have to be at levels which would be detremintal to the economy. They aren't, and never will be, so the argument in favour of them is pure bullshit. They are just poor excuses for yet more excessive taxation.

Similarly the arguments for a "carbon market" are rubbish - if someone saves more than they need to then selling the excess "saving" does no-one any good. It is just another excuse for shifting money from one place to another, really nothing to do with global warming. Want to bet that there will be a tax on those purchasing the excess savings?

However, I feel that those who are against doing anything at all are also talking out of their hats. If anyone can produce convincing reasons why any individual, company or country would not want to reduce it's fuel consumption I'd be glad to hear it.

I can understand why people (motor manufacturers for example) don't want to invest in fuel saving advances if their competitors don't do the same. In the short term it can only result in higher prices if the costs are passed on to the consumer, or lower profits of not. Failure to react when your competitors are making investments is crazy though. A short term boost in profits will be followed by long term recession or even death of industries who have failed to keep up.

Ava you shouldn't stereotype the members

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ava etc

What people like you...

---

..and believe me J2k4 is perfectly capable of writing his own stuff.. but why bother if someone else has already done the hard work..

Personally, I believe there is sufficient evidence to say that the earth is getting warmer and that human produced CO2 is a major contributory factor, but imo the newspaper articles which always quote the worst case stuff from reports are generally retarded. The reports always say that theres huge uncertainty and so this almost automatically makes the worst case scenario a complete doom and gloom exaggeration, but its not really what scientists are predicting in their reports, its just what'll make a good headline.
This report is good news, and there will be more reports as time goes on reducing the error bars further and further (most likely reducing the probability of apocalyptic scenarios) as the models get better.

in the end it all begins at home.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ava Estelle

Another cut and paste job j2?

Why yes, yes it is.

What people like you fail to mention is this, if we clean up our act and are subsequently proved wrong, we have lost NOTHING, if we fail to act, as you believe we should, and are proved wrong, we lose EVERYTHING.

So then:

You advocate meekly ceding EVERYTHING, and living thence with NOTHING.

How fucking dopey is that?

Here's a little cut and paste from your own cut and paste ...

Scientists insist that the lower estimates for sea levels and the human impact on global warming are simply a refinement due to better data on how climate works rather than a reduction in the risk posed by global warming.

---

...And here is what YOU'VE fail to note about THAT:

The same scientists who failed to adequately interpret the very data they recently used in their attempt to scare the bejebus out of everyone on the fucking planet have a felt need to backpedal furiously before they are caught with their pants around their ankles.

These are the scientists idiots such as yourself exalt as the ultimate and undeniable authorities, to whom you willingly entrust the livelihoods of everyone on the entire planet, save third- and fourth-worlders.

How fucking dopey is that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lynx

As far as I can see, the case for global warming is still far from proven.
And I don't buy the "yes, but what if it's right, think of the children" scaremongering either.

Even if you accept the need for action, so called "green taxes" are a con. In order to be effective they would have to be at levels which would be detremintal to the economy. They aren't, and never will be, so the argument in favour of them is pure bullshit. They are just poor excuses for yet more excessive taxation.

Similarly the arguments for a "carbon market" are rubbish - if someone saves more than they need to then selling the excess "saving" does no-one any good. It is just another excuse for shifting money from one place to another, really nothing to do with global warming. Want to bet that there will be a tax on those purchasing the excess savings?

However, I feel that those who are against doing anything at all are also talking out of their hats. If anyone can produce convincing reasons why any individual, company or country would not want to reduce it's fuel consumption I'd be glad to hear it.

I can understand why people (motor manufacturers for example) don't want to invest in fuel saving advances if their competitors don't do the same. In the short term it can only result in higher prices if the costs are passed on to the consumer, or lower profits of not. Failure to react when your competitors are making investments is crazy though. A short term boost in profits will be followed by long term recession or even death of industries who have failed to keep up.

---

I'm very happy to have my colleague lynx carry the ball in this instance, as I can thereby escape any further nonsense about cut-and-paste. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HeavyMetalParkingLot

And this kids, is what is referred to as "the pot calling the kettle black".

---

HMP, the master of saying nothing ... do you actually have any opinions, or is this it for you?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thewizeard

..and believe me J2k4 is perfectly capable of writing his own stuff.. but why bother if someone else has already done the hard work..

---

The point is, he once posted here railing against people who cut and paste.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

How fucking dopey is that?

---

Not as 'fucking dopey' as putting your trust in oil companies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

I'm very happy to have my colleague lynx carry the ball in this instance, as I can thereby escape any further nonsense about cut-and-paste. ;)

---

How do you interpret what Lynx has said as supporting your point of view?

look, we all know he is a pain in the but... but... ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ava Estelle

How do you interpret what Lynx has said as supporting your point of view?

---

This post...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lynx

As far as I can see, the case for global warming is still far from proven.
And I don't buy the "yes, but what if it's right, think of the children" scaremongering either.

Even if you accept the need for action, so called "green taxes" are a con. In order to be effective they would have to be at levels which would be detremintal to the economy. They aren't, and never will be, so the argument in favour of them is pure bullshit. They are just poor excuses for yet more excessive taxation.

Similarly the arguments for a "carbon market" are rubbish - if someone saves more than they need to then selling the excess "saving" does no-one any good. It is just another excuse for shifting money from one place to another, really nothing to do with global warming. Want to bet that there will be a tax on those purchasing the excess savings?

However, I feel that those who are against doing anything at all are also talking out of their hats. If anyone can produce convincing reasons why any individual, company or country would not want to reduce it's fuel consumption I'd be glad to hear it.

I can understand why people (motor manufacturers for example) don't want to invest in fuel saving advances if their competitors don't do the same. In the short term it can only result in higher prices if the costs are passed on to the consumer, or lower profits of not. Failure to react when your competitors are making investments is crazy though. A short term boost in profits will be followed by long term recession or even death of industries who have failed to keep up.

---

...is pretty much a spot-on reflection of my opinion as to the entire matter of global warming.

That you've not noticed this is to your detriment.

BTW-I've been meaning to compliment you on your behavior since your return here; you're almost tolerable.

Good show. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ava Estelle

HMP, the master of saying nothing ... do you actually have any opinions, or is this it for you?

---

Are you capable of discussion without automatically going on the defensive with those who have different opinions? Or would that be a blow to your over inflated ego?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HeavyMetalParkingLot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ava Estelle

HMP, the master of saying nothing ... do you actually have any opinions, or is this it for you?

---

Are you capable of discussion without automatically going on the defensive with those who have different opinions? Or would that be a blow to your over inflated ego?

---

As I said, do you have any opinions or are you only concerned with me?

I find your obsession disturbing, you should seek help.

I know this has been covered before but I have never received an answer. There is talk of the sea levels rising anything from 1" to a few feet. Where is this water going to come from. Discount the north pole. It is the equivalent of an ice cube therefore if it melts the level of the sea does not rise. Given that the land mass of the world is only 30% of the total area you would require 30 inches of snow on every inch of land to melt just to raise the sea level 1".

Considering we dont have anything near 30 inches of snow, or the equivalent, covering the land mass of the world, where is all the water going to come from? Is there something they are not telling us?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by http://www.greenfacts.org/en/arctic-climate-change/l-2/3-sea-level-rise.htm

3.4 How can climate change cause sea level rise?

3.4.1 There are 3 100 000 km3 of ice on Arctic lands around the world, containing enough water to raise the global sea level by 8m. Most Arctic glaciers and ice caps have been in decline since the early 1960s, with this trend speeding up in the 1990s. In some areas, the increase in precipitation has outpaced the melting so that a small number of glaciers, especially in Scandinavia, have gained mass during some recent years.

The Greenland Ice Sheet is the largest area of ice on Arctic lands. Part of the top layer of ice of this ice sheet is melting during summer and the area where this is happening increased by about 16% between 1979 and 2002, (which represents) an area roughly the size of Sweden.

Projections from global climate models suggest that the contribution of Arctic glaciers to global sea-level rise will accelerate over the next 100 years. By 2100, the melt of these glaciers will have contributed to a rise of roughly four to six centimeters or even more according to recent estimates. In the longer term, the Arctic contribution to global sea-level rise is projected to be much greater. Some climate models project that local warming over the Greenland Ice Sheet will eventually lead to its complete disappearance, with a resulting sea-level rise of about seven meters. More...

3.4.2 Climate change causes sea level to rise in two ways:

* First, and most significantly, water expands as it warms, and this is projected to be the largest component of sea-level rise over the next 100 years.
* Secondly, warming increases melting of glaciers and ice sheets, adding to the amount of water flowing into the oceans.

Global average sea level rose almost 3mm (0.12 inches) per year during the 1990s. This is about one millimeter (0.04 inches) more per year than during the decades before that. Global average sea level is projected to rise 10 to 90cm (4 to 36 inches) between 2000 and 2100, with the rise speeding up with time. Over the longer term, much larger increases in sea level are projected.

Sea-level rise is projected to have serious implications for coastal communities and industries, islands, river deltas and harbors. A number of the world’s most populous cities such at Calcutta and Bangkok will be severely affected.

---

:idunno:

..and it might just slip into the Atlantic ocean causing the second largest tsunami ever recorded :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bigboab

Considering we dont have anything near 30 inches of snow, or the equivalent, covering the land mass of the world, where is all the water going to come from? Is there something they are not telling us?

---

Quote:

---

The main ice covered landmass is Antarctica at the South Pole, with about 90 percent of the world's ice (and 70 percent of its fresh water). Antarctica is covered with ice an average of 2,133 meters (7,000 feet) thick. If all of the Antarctic ice melted, sea levels around the world would rise about 61 meters (200 feet).

---

Source

The understanding of this global warming issue is probably beyond most of the world population. It takes an in-depth analysis to see what we're doing to our planet. Look at it throughly and make your own decision.

I personally think that the solution is to implement some sort of population control. If we don't do it then our planet will force it upon us.

My hopes aren't high about this. People just don't seem to want to agree about anything.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virtualbody1234

The understanding of this global warming issue is probably beyond most of the world population. It takes an in-depth analysis to see what we're doing to our planet. Look at it throughly and make your own decision.

I personally think that the solution is to implement some sort of population control. If we don't do it then our planet will force it upon us.

My hopes aren't high about this. People just don't seem to want to agree about anything.

---

Yes I agree. I have had two different answers to my question. Both cannot be correct, both could be wrong though.:) I think I will get the spreadsheet working.:lol:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bigboab

I have had two different answers to my question. Both cannot be correct, both could be wrong though.

---

Really? They look the same to me. You asked where the sea level rise would come from if all the ice melted, "If all of the Antarctic ice melted, sea levels around the world would rise about 61 meters (200 feet)."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ava Estelle

We know you're an advocate of doing nothing, as your lords and masters the oil companies suggest...

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ava Estelle

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

How fucking dopey is that?

---

Not as 'fucking dopey' as putting your trust in oil companies...

---

Please indicate for me where I ever said anything about oil companies, one way or another?

Or do you consider my "trust in oil companies" to be implicit, somehow?

That's just wrong; the only thing I take on faith where you are concerned is your dishonesty, intellectual and otherwise.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ava Estelle

The point is, he once posted here railing against people who cut and paste.

---

Yet another example.

"It's okay for others, just not for j2"

I did "rail" against "people who cut-and-paste"; yes, I did, in response to idiots like you, who would prefer exclusivity on that point.

You fail to mention this, however.

You have this in common with Busyman, BTW.

Among other things.

Well, hell...what can I expect from an anti-free-speech Communist, right?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ava Estelle

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bigboab

I have had two different answers to my question. Both cannot be correct, both could be wrong though.

---

Really? They look the same to me. You asked where the sea level rise would come from if all the ice melted, "If all of the Antarctic ice melted, sea levels around the world would rise about 61 meters (200 feet)."

---

Barbarossa

Quote:

---

There are 3 100 000 km3 of ice on Arctic lands around the world, containing enough water to raise the global sea level by 8m. Most Arctic glaciers and ice caps have been in decline since the early 1960s, with this trend speeding up in the 1990s. In some areas, the increase in precipitation has outpaced the melting so that a small number of glaciers, especially in Scandinavia, have gained mass during some recent years.

---

Take a look at the answer above. It says it would rise by 8 metres and that is for the total ice mass of the world. That is only about 13% of the levels you quote that would just come from Antarctica.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

... is your dishonesty, intellectual and otherwise

Well, hell...what can I expect from an anti-free-speech Communist, right?

---

Priceless! The sillier you're made to look, the more insulting you get.

A poor substitute for substance, but what can you expect from an ass licking, party line toeing, Barbie doll?

Have you thought of a spot of maintenance, maybe a new string and a few original platitudes?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bigboab

Take a look at the answer above. It says it would rise by 8 metres and that is for the total ice mass of the world. That is only about 13% of the levels you quote that would just come from Antarctica.

---

BB, check that quote, it says ARCTIC lands, that's up North, I quoted ANTARCTIC lands, that's down South.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bigboab

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ava Estelle

Really? They look the same to me. You asked where the sea level rise would come from if all the ice melted, "If all of the Antarctic ice melted, sea levels around the world would rise about 61 meters (200 feet)."

---

Barbarossa

Quote:

---

There are 3 100 000 km3 of ice on Arctic lands around the world, containing enough water to raise the global sea level by 8m. Most Arctic glaciers and ice caps have been in decline since the early 1960s, with this trend speeding up in the 1990s. In some areas, the increase in precipitation has outpaced the melting so that a small number of glaciers, especially in Scandinavia, have gained mass during some recent years.

---

Take a look at the answer above. It says it would rise by 8 metres and that is for the total ice mass of the world. That is only about 13% of the levels you quote that would just come from Antarctica.

---

Yes, Boab, but the 61 meter, 200-foot thingie was what Ava's google yielded, so you're stuck with that.

Deal with it. :dabs:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Deal with it. :dabs:

---

Haha! Wrong time of month Barbie?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bigboab

Barbarossa

Quote:

---

There are 3 100 000 km3 of ice on Arctic lands around the world, containing enough water to raise the global sea level by 8m. Most Arctic glaciers and ice caps have been in decline since the early 1960s, with this trend speeding up in the 1990s. In some areas, the increase in precipitation has outpaced the melting so that a small number of glaciers, especially in Scandinavia, have gained mass during some recent years.

---

Take a look at the answer above. It says it would rise by 8 metres and that is for the total ice mass of the world. That is only about 13% of the levels you quote that would just come from Antarctica.

---

Yes, Boab, but the 61 meter, 200-foot thingie was what Ava's google yielded, so you're stuck with that.

Deal with it. :dabs:

---

I have Googled a bit more. It seems that Ava has underestimated the rise that would occur. I have found quotes(3) that say over 70 metres. Barbie does say the Arctic which would not affect the levels much because most of it is 'ice cube'.

So I have found out where the water is going to come from. Thanks Ava.

P.S. I still find the figures incredulous but will have to accept them or go to the Antarctic and measure for myself.:lol:

Thanks to all who replied.:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

"It's okay for others, just not for j2"

I did "rail" against "people who cut-and-paste"; yes, I did, in response to idiots like you, who would prefer exclusivity on that point.

You fail to mention this, however.

You have this in common with Busyman, BTW.

Among other things.

---

Please explain. I am not the first or only one to talk about about your CNP and what "other things"?

This "exclusivity" must be the entire board. You used to CNP very opinionated articles with nary point made by yourself. You've just got slightly better by adding a preface or epilogue. Usually it says, "Thie article sums up my views nicely."

Some people use facts and such articles to form their own opinion. Others post someone else's opinion and adopt it.:dabs:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman™

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

"It's okay for others, just not for j2"

I did "rail" against "people who cut-and-paste"; yes, I did, in response to idiots like you, who would prefer exclusivity on that point.

You fail to mention this, however.

You have this in common with Busyman, BTW.

Among other things.

---

Please explain. I am not the first or only one to talk about about your CNP and what "other things"?

This "exclusivity" must be the entire board. You used to CNP very opinionated articles with nary point made by yourself. You've just got slightly better by adding a preface or epilogue. Usually it says, "Thie article sums up my views nicely."

Some people use facts and such articles to form their own opinion. Others post someone else's opinion and adopt it.:dabs:

---

And still others find an article of opinion that "sums up my views nicely".

What of that, and what should be required apart from a statement signifying agreement with it's content?

If I do a total C & P, and adorn it with such an introduction, I mean to say that I find it's content agreeable, and that it is as well- or better-constructed than any effort of my own, not to mention the savings of effort and time.

Others do this sort of thing all the time, much more often than I do, and most often with even less accompanying commentary.

In my case, though, you seem to feel this signifies some sort of shortcoming.

BTW-

I have taken your advice and found an audience willing to entertain any felt need on my part to use the "N"-word.

If you stumble through the door by mistake, would I have to stop?