|
Post by dontom on Oct 23, 2022 21:21:07 GMT -5
The event was not a sundog, because they saw the sun moving around. Again, you can always come up with an explanation, but you then have the burden of proving your version and saying the eyewitnesses, who corroborated each other and had no reason to lie, were watching sun dogs. And good luck getting the US Supreme Court to rejecting eye witness testimony. I have no idea what they thought they saw. I was just mentioning possibilities. Religious people lie all the time without even knowing it. But mostly to themselves. They like to convince themselves that their obvious nonsense is true. "Seeing is believing" is really often the opposite. Believing is seeing. People often see what they believe. That is because they want to. They need to convince themselves their nonsense is true. If you don't believe me, just ask SJ. -Don- Auburn, CA
|
|
|
Post by Sir John on Oct 25, 2022 11:30:23 GMT -5
Actually talking to a greenie is much like talking to a religious fanatic.
Both are 110% convinced of their point of view, and even a valid point is refuted by a tirade of "evidence" and dogma, outrage even.
Tell him that ice does not melt at MINUS 20 Centigrade and see how you go. Tell him that the Greenland ice sheet is growing not melting and see the reaction.
"Give me the boy to the age of 7, and I have him for life"
JMNHO
SJ
|
|
|
Post by dontom on Oct 26, 2022 1:04:05 GMT -5
Actually talking to a greenie is much like talking to a religious fanatic. Both are 110% convinced of their point of view, and even a valid point is refuted by a tirade of "evidence" and dogma, outrage even. Tell him that ice does not melt at MINUS 20 Centigrade and see how you go. Tell him that the Greenland ice sheet is growing not melting and see the reaction. "Give me the boy to the age of 7, and I have him for life" JMNHO SJ The difference is that you're 120% convinced of your nonsense. Am I the only one here who listens to facts only and no nonsense? Facts are facts and they will not change because of your nonsense or likes. -Don- Reno, NV
|
|
|
Post by Swampy on Oct 28, 2022 2:05:15 GMT -5
A three-sided war among the three members of this forum?
SJ is anti-relgion and anti-climate change; I'm anti-climate change but not anti-religion; Don is anti-religion but pro-climate change. We've got all the permutations of the two issues, it seems.
Time to talk about Strawberry.
|
|
|
Post by Sir John on Oct 28, 2022 11:36:24 GMT -5
I think Strawberry is way past menopause by now, and maybe checking out retirement villages.
Plenty of 30 year old blondes about.
SJ
|
|
|
Post by dontom on Oct 28, 2022 20:34:46 GMT -5
A three-sided war among the three members of this forum? SJ is anti-relgion and anti-climate change; I'm anti-climate change but not anti-religion; Don is anti-religion but pro-climate change. We've got all the permutations of the two issues, it seems. Time to talk about Strawberry. I am anti-BS & anti-nonsense and pro-fact. And with me, it has nothing to do with politics. It has to do with truth only. The real problem is that this world doesn't run on truth. It runs on BS. But I try to look at the bright side. It's the one resource we will never run out of. -Don- Reno, NV
|
|
|
Post by dontom on Oct 28, 2022 20:39:14 GMT -5
I'm anti-climate change but not anti-religion Are you anti-evolution as being fact too? Don't believe in fact because of religious nonsense? -Don- Reno, NV
|
|
|
Post by Sir John on Oct 29, 2022 0:20:55 GMT -5
Don,
"I am anti-BS & anti-nonsense and pro-fact. And with me, it has nothing to do with politics. It has to do with truth only."
Your comments on 'Glacier Girl' are awaited, is the 200+ feet of solid ice ABOVE the plane truth or BS? AFAIK there are only 2 explanations, the ice has GROWN from compacted snow on top of the plane, or the plane has DESCENDED in the ice.
SJ
|
|
|
Post by Swampy on Oct 29, 2022 2:01:25 GMT -5
Don,
I used to believe in evolution, but, after listening to the skeptics (ie intelligent design), I'm on the fence. I note that the evolutionists have evidence of change within species, but not between them. In fact, they have no chimpanzee fossils, and they still haven't found the missing link between us and apes.
|
|
|
Post by dontom on Oct 29, 2022 21:28:10 GMT -5
Don, I used to believe in evolution, but, after listening to the skeptics (ie intelligent design), I'm on the fence. I note that the evolutionists have evidence of change within species, but not between them. In fact, they have no chimpanzee fossils, and they still haven't found the missing link between us and apes. There are no "missing links". If every year is accounted for the religious fanatics will say there is a missing link in some month. The same if we do it by the second, they would want by the microsecond. Such religious fanatics will accept any BS except for the truth. The truth is the link between man and ape is an ape-like creature that didn't survive in that form. That so called "missing link" even has a name, "homo erectus" and has been found. Lived around two million years ago. The change was a very slow change to homo sapiens. That is us. Man and ape had a common ancestor. 16 million years ago, called "Dryopithecus". It isn't direct from ape to man, but some like to say otherwise because homo erectus was somewhat ape-like. Is that clear enough? If not, what more do you want? Every nanosecond of the change to us humans? The theory of evolution is a well-proven scientific fact. As much as is the theory of gravity. Case is closed to all but the religious fanatics. But that doesn't mean we know everything about evolution, gravity or anything else. -Don- Reno, NV
|
|
|
Post by dontom on Oct 29, 2022 21:36:42 GMT -5
Don, "I am anti-BS & anti-nonsense and pro-fact. And with me, it has nothing to do with politics. It has to do with truth only." Your comments on 'Glacier Girl' are awaited, is the 200+ feet of solid ice ABOVE the plane truth or BS? AFAIK there are only 2 explanations, the ice has GROWN from compacted snow on top of the plane, or the plane has DESCENDED in the ice. SJ Are you referring to this? -Don- Reno, NV
|
|
|
Post by Sir John on Oct 29, 2022 22:29:26 GMT -5
'Red Herring' - an Irrelevent diversion.
As I am sure you are aware, the Greenland Ice Cap and a glacier are two entirely different things. A glacier is a river of ice moving downhill under the influence of gravity, to the sea.
The Ice Cap is a thumping great block of ice about 5000 feet thick, and a max so far discovered of about 12,000 feet.
When the glacier reaches the sea it "calves" in spectacular fashion, and the Greenies love taking pics of it and say that the glacier is melting, which it does eventually as the ice melts in the sea. The two are entirely unrelated in this debate.
NOW, back to the question about Glacier Girl, HOW did the plane get 200+ feet down in the ice cap?
SJ
|
|
|
Post by dontom on Oct 29, 2022 23:19:47 GMT -5
NOW, back to the question about Glacier Girl, HOW did the plane get 200+ feet down in the ice cap? Exactly where in Greenland did it crash? Onto Gunnbjorn Fjeld? Greenland is a large place. Greenland's highest mountain is Gunnbjorn Fjeld with a height of 3,700 meters (12,139 ft) above the sea. Ice will continue to accumulate because it is much colder there. Really doesn't prove or disprove the ice is melting faster than ever--which is fact. You will have to come up with more facts to prove what is happening is not really happening. AFAIK, nobody is claiming there are not parts of Greenland where there is still a lot of cold wet weather. The only claim is that the ice is melting faster than ever into the ocean. That doesn't mean it's melting fast right in the middle of Greenland at 3,700 meters in elevation. -Don- Reno, NV
|
|
|
Post by Sir John on Oct 30, 2022 12:06:17 GMT -5
No, the West to East flight path from Nuuk to Rejkyavik is well south of that.
Check it out on Google Earth, and you will also see that much of the coastal area of Greenland is near ice free. Glaciers yes, doing what glaciers do, but little of the permanent ice cap except in the north where it covers it all the way to the sea.
I am well aware of my science masters revelation that temperature falls at the rate of 3 F for every 1000 feet of elevation. That applies over ALL of the Greenland ice cap. Most of the year over most of it, is NEVER above 0C.
So, giving me an example of ice in any form melting at the coast is irrelevant to the claim that IF it ALL melted the sea rise would be a problem. I am sure that over 20 years that half an inch rise is of nil consequence.
That 4.7 TRILLION tons of ice is propaganda overkill, as usual.
SJ
|
|
|
Post by dontom on Oct 30, 2022 17:01:40 GMT -5
No, the West to East flight path from Nuuk to Rejkyavik is well south of that. That 4.7 TRILLION tons of ice is propaganda overkill, as usual. SJ I also realize that this world runs on BS, but I have a difficult time buying it runs on that much BS including phony photos of the ice melt as well as countless other scientific research that you're saying is BS. I would think if the "Glacier Girl" being buried in ice really proves anything, there would be countless people saying so, not just a few. I assume it can be easily explained, but I do not have the answer for that one, but I will be looking. I assume some experts have already been asked that question. What do they say? -Don- Auburn, CA
|
|