Re: [asa]

From: John Burgeson (ASA member) <>
Date: Fri May 01 2009 - 10:14:58 EDT

So far the best source I've seen is for a discussion list.

I'm always looking for better sources -- or at least different ones. I
heard of one called yesterday -- it's on my
list to look up. There are a lot of anti-IPCC sites -- all I have seen
are regurgitating arguments already rejected and/or just telling
falsities. There may be some which are reputable; I have not been able
to find them. I have three skeptical friends -- I keep challenging
them to find one but so far nada.

Greenland is another place where the ice sits on land. I've seen
estimates of one mile deep in some places.

Please keep me informed of anything you come up with -- pro or con.
Check out They have links to refutations of almost
any anti-IPCC argument that the anti-AGW people have been able to come
up with.

The significance of this subject for the ASA list is two-fold.

1. There is a substantial correlation between how "religious" or
"right wing" a person is and how much they think AGW is bogus. There
is also a substantial correlation between a person's scientific
training and how much they think AGW is real. That's an interesting
split here, since most of us are both "religious" and "scientific."

2. Taking care of the created world is seen by most Christians as
being of some importance. If AGW is real, and I hold that it is very
real, then we, as Christians, need to do what we can about it.


On 4/30/09, Murray Hogg <> wrote:
> Hi Burgy,
> I often wonder over those rising sea level figures.
> I used to think the larger values were utter bunk on the basis that ice is
> largely submerged - so melting it wouldn't effect the sea levels all THAT
> much.
> But then the penny dropped - the Antarctic ice ISN'T floating, it's sitting
> on land! Funny what you can overlook!
> Do you know anywhere where the assumptions and calculations are laid out as
> I'd be curious to see them.
> Blessings,
> Murray
> John Burgeson (ASA member) wrote:
>> I just posted the following two comments on in the
>> "Hit the Brakes" thread. They are somewhere after post #144.
>> Burgy
>> John Burgeson Says:
>> 30 April 2009 at 5:07 PM
>> In all this discussion, Id like to explore one data point.
>> Question: When/if the polar ice caps completely melt, how much higher
>> will the oceans be?
>> Paul Blanchen and three other researchers did an analysis of Xcerat
>> Park in Mexico. The report (and an abstract and a short interview with
>> Blanchen) are in NATURE, pages 803 and 881, V458 (4/16/09).
>> Their focus was the sea rise change circa 121,000 years ago. They
>> measured that change (presumably when all polar ice had melted) at
>> about 7 feet.
>> Elsewhere on this site Ive seen statements that the rise might be as
>> much as 35 feet. 7 feet MIGHT be sustainable; 35 feet clearly is not.
>> Does 7 feet seem reasonably accurate, or will it be more (assuming the
>> polar ice completely melts)?
>> John Burgeson Says: Your comment is awaiting moderation.
>> 30 April 2009 at 5:09 PM
>> On another part of the puzzle. John Holdren is quoted in the same
>> issue of NATURE (on page 819) as saying a $100 tax on carbon will
>> cause the price of gas to rise by 30c. That sounds affordable.
>> To unsubscribe, send a message to with
>> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
> To unsubscribe, send a message to with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri May 1 10:15:36 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri May 01 2009 - 10:15:36 EDT