Global Warming Bunk: Dissolving the Polar Ice Caps Fear By Mark Weiss On ExposureRoom

	Mark Weiss United States Friends: 6 Focused on : 0	Home Assets Journals Favorites Friends Profile Videos Photos Music Scripts Albums
Contact Member

This is a brief documentary and demonstration of the effects of melting ice and its effect on prevailing ocean levels. Enviromentalists claim that a rise in earth temperatures causes melting of polar ice caps and that as this ice melts, it supposedly causes a rise of ocean levels which is supposed to submerge small island nations, thus making the big oil companies liable for billions of dollars in damages to these small nations. This demonstration clearly illustrates what happens to the water levels, as the ice melts. Fact or fiction? Judge for yourself.

Play the HD Version (High Bandwidth Required)

Mdsize: 10.72MBwxh: 640x360

Updated: 5 months ago

Short

Genre: Documentary

Duration: 00:02:15

Definition: This Video is a High Definition (HD) Video

Dimensions: 1280 x 720

Size: 61.84MB

Credits

All Production Elements: Mark Weiss Rating: 0.00

Tags: Basspig Climate Change Environment Global Warming Government Ocean PMW-EX1 Time-lapse

Equipment:

See Recent Videos By Mark

Great New England Air Show Highlights 9/7/2008

Great New England Air Show: SHOCKWAVE CRASH DETAIL 9/7/2008

Great New England Air Show: SHOCKWAVE DISASTER 9/7/2008

Mark,

The only problem with your demonstration is that the ice and water are all in the same space so of course the level will remain the same but if you put your rock in a dish of wate and a block of ice on a slope off to the side so when it melts i'll bet the level changes. This is the reality of the situation all the ice that is melting is not in the oceans but on frozen ground and as it melts it will flow INTO the oceans thus the rise in sea level.

Ray.

While that is a correct observation, one must remember that the ocean covers 3/4 of the earth, and the few land masses that have some ice coverage are insignificant in terms of the volume of ice the contain, when compared to the huge volume of the oceans. Further eroding the effectiveness of ice as a raising force in the ocean is the fact that polar ice is full of air bubbles. So when it melts, it's equivalent volume of water is even less than it's "apparant" volume as a solid.
My main point is that the concept is being exaggerated wildly by government-funded "yellow science" (referencing Randolph Hurst's "yellow journalism" of the 1970s). Legitimate scientific opinions are being squelched by the leftist environmental 'religion' (their true motive is the total destruction of all civilization as we know it and making man subservient to animals and plant wildlife) and hence the only bastian of free and equal speech, the internet, becomes a means of countering this one-sided mainstream movement.

I like your demonstration. I also believe that a comet hitting the ocean will end humanity is a bunch of crap. Shoot a BB gun into a mud puddle, what happens?

Mark,

I don't believe this demonstration demonstrates anything in particular. Global warming has many repercussions and rising sea levels is probably the least of man kind's worries. In the real word (such as ours) looking at issues in isolation rarely give rise to concern. It's the repercussions of one effect over another over another etc. that we as humans have to worry about and not one effect in isolation. But I assume from what you attempt here that you don't believe that Global warming is even a phenomenon?
Steven,
Drop a pebble or a large rock into that puddle and see what happens :). Or better still, look up at the moon tonight and wonder how it got there :).

I know, people can't be convinced if they don't want see reason, and I'm not going to try. But one always hopes :)

Shiv,

I think we need to look at motivation for the "global warming" scare. 30 years ago, it was "global cooling"--the enviromentalists were saying that the earth was in danger of another ice age. Now they flipped their position 180º and are saying the opposite. The motive can usually be traced to money. "Follow the money" has got to be one of the most powerful truth cutters around. These enviros get huge government funding (taxpayer money) to conduct their "science" projects--as long as their motive is to "prove" the position of their investors.

There's a growing 'silent majority' of scientists, climatologists, geologists and meteorologists who are in strong disagreement with the GW movement. And they are being shunned by the Liberal-funded & owned media. In fact, any scientists who's research sheds doubt on the GW concept, lose their federal funding. It's all one-sided.

Some questions we need to ask:

1. Is GW really a bad thing? If the earth warms a bit, formerly arrid climates become temperate and livable. Farming output increases with more furtile land percentage.

2. Is man really affecting the weather on a global scale? I think this is a cavalier assumption. The only aspect of man's activity that could remotely have even a slight affect would be air travel--the thousands of planes criss-crossing the skies every day emit more chemical compounds into the upper atmosphere than any one down here can possibly do by spraying deodorant after a shower--yet the EPA chose to follow that absurd path and ban CFCs.
Short of exploding hundreds of nukes, I doubt man has the capability to alter the atmosphere in any lasting manner. 3/4 of the planet is water. Industrial civilization is but a spec on this planet. Looking at just cities, one could falsely conclude that the planet is over-crowded, but in reality, you could fit the world's population into Texas and wind up with an average city density, to illustrate the exaggeration of the population "problem".

We can only affect the local air quality. And with the invention of the cat converter, and cleaner-burning cars, we have less noxious fumes when following another car on a country road today, then forty years ago. I used to remember driving to Norwalk in the 60s and 70s and having my throat really get irritated by the fumes from the cars in front of me. Nowadays, the air is pretty clean.

If enviros are really concerned about the planet, they should stop flying their private Lear jets all over the planet. I think environmentalism is a new religion, actually. A religion that seeks one end: the destruction of modern civilization, and the subjegation of Man to Nature, ie., picture man naked and huddled in caves--that is where the enviros want us to be.

Mark,

I should be honest and tell you I don't know much about the politics behind Global warming. But with everything (including politics) there are at least two points of view. I could probably argue on behalf of either camp.

Global warming aside, my gut tells me I'd rather see us harnessing the sun's energy and the wind (and other renewable energy sources) and stay far away from gasoline. People (especially in America) need to understand the merits of energy conservation (especially to their pockets) and implement simple changes in their lives.

Human nature is such that we resist change. If we can find anything that convinces us we don't need to change, we'd rather believe that than change. I don’t believe everything environmentalists say either. I’m in the middle. In America almost everything is either black or white but I believe most solutions are to be found in the middle.

Global Warming Bunk: Dissolving the Polar Ice Caps Fear

See Recent Videos By Mark

Comments

Menus