Need Bees Removed?
International
Beekeeping Forums
July 25, 2014, 07:42:11 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
News: ATTENTION ALL NEW MEMBERS
PLEASE READ THIS OR YOUR ACCOUNT MAY BE DELETED - CLICK HERE
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar bee removal Login Register Chat(1)  

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Global Warming  (Read 12410 times)
Bee Happy
Super Bee
*****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 1656


Location: Between Panama city, Florida and Dothan Al.

that's me - setting a phoenix free


« Reply #40 on: June 03, 2009, 03:51:57 AM »

...I've seen you tube videos claiming there's cities on the moon, and mars. I like you tube, but that doesn't mean I'm going to simply believe someone based on compelling imagery.
why do psuedoscience global "climate change" goobers endlessly harp about [exactly] carbon DIoxide? Carbon DIoxide is what plants inhale and makes them healthy - carbon MONoxide is toxic. if they can't get the scientific terms right I seriously can't entertain their information.  ...that's not all I've got - This isn't a minor misapplication, chemically it's like interchanging honey with slick 50. omg I just looked at your greenman videos - now they know the co2 interchangeability lie is caught and have to backtrack?
« Last Edit: June 03, 2009, 04:06:55 AM by Bee Happy » Logged

be happy and make others happy.
SgtMaj
Queen Bee
****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 1464


Location: Corryton, TN


« Reply #41 on: June 03, 2009, 04:14:58 AM »

...I've seen you tube videos claiming there's cities on the moon, and mars. I like you tube, but that doesn't mean I'm going to simply believe someone based on compelling imagery.

So I take it you weren't willing to actually visit the websites referenced in the videos, like the us geological survey site, nasa site, noaa site, etc?  Guess you're not really all that interrested in facts either. 

why do psuedoscience global "climate change" goobers endlessly harp about [exactly] carbon DIoxide? Carbon DIoxide is what plants inhale and makes them healthy - carbon MONoxide is toxic. if they can't get the scientific terms right I seriously can't entertain their information.

I see that your attention span is less than 1 second since that little strawman arguement of yours was ripped to shreds in the first 5 seconds on one of those videos.  You know, you'd look a hell of a lot smarter if you had actually watched them so that you'd know better than to choose a strawman arguement that had already been exposed as such.  Do you need me to post the relevant link for you again so that you don't have to look for it (because God knows that would take 5 seconds, which is about 4 seconds longer than your attention span)?  Or are you ready to start looking a little more intelligent now?
Logged
Bee Happy
Super Bee
*****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 1656


Location: Between Panama city, Florida and Dothan Al.

that's me - setting a phoenix free


« Reply #42 on: June 03, 2009, 05:36:04 AM »

...I've seen you tube videos claiming there's cities on the moon, and mars. I like you tube, but that doesn't mean I'm going to simply believe someone based on compelling imagery.

So I take it you weren't willing to actually visit the websites referenced in the videos, like the us geological survey site, nasa site, noaa site, etc?  Guess you're not really all that interrested in facts either. 

why do psuedoscience global "climate change" goobers endlessly harp about [exactly] carbon DIoxide? Carbon DIoxide is what plants inhale and makes them healthy - carbon MONoxide is toxic. if they can't get the scientific terms right I seriously can't entertain their information.

I see that your attention span is less than 1 second since that little strawman arguement of yours was ripped to shreds in the first 5 seconds on one of those videos.  You know, you'd look a hell of a lot smarter if you had actually watched them so that you'd know better than to choose a strawman arguement that had already been exposed as such.  Do you need me to post the relevant link for you again so that you don't have to look for it (because God knows that would take 5 seconds, which is about 4 seconds longer than your attention span)?  Or are you ready to start looking a little more intelligent now?

nope, I just know the harpers argument changes whenever a hole is punched into it. like the "ozone" thing in the 90s (where did that go?)
they were in fact teaching us in the 70s that an ice age was coming. I watched the guys videos - he completely skirted the FACT that they were swearing we'd be freezing by now.
I was in college when they claimed that the sea level would rise exponentially starting anytime after 2000.(remember that horrible cinematic affront: "Waterworld"? - I realize it was just a movie - a movie only modestly exaggerating the mantra of the day.) I saw the strawman video; how convenient - just deny you ever said it and pretend something you "never said" is being attacked. I remember things. it happens.
as to pursuing the nasa, and noaa data - no thanks, really. Not that I don't believe they earned their science credentials legitimately  but that 1: we're relatively new in geological terms at understanding the functions of this planet and the universe (They very often present new data with a little fearmongering BECAUSE part of their strategy to obtain money for research is to scare  the people controlling the purse into believing that more research is needed because they want to research and learn more)
2: I learned firsthand from a military scientist, and it's the same in ALL scientists, that OBTAINING FUNDING requires SCARING PEOPLE. ("we need to develop 'Y' because they may use 'X' in ______ way.")
Just because an argument is sophisticated and beautiful doesn't mean it can't be wrong or just a total lie to get money. - they keep changing the cause/effect/factors.
« Last Edit: June 03, 2009, 08:27:55 AM by Bee Happy » Logged

be happy and make others happy.
SgtMaj
Queen Bee
****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 1464


Location: Corryton, TN


« Reply #43 on: June 03, 2009, 06:35:30 AM »

nope, I just know the harpers argument changes whenever a hole is punched into it. like the "ozone" thing in the 90s (where did that go?)

You mean that ozone thing that was fixed when governments took the advice of the scientific community and banned CFC's?  That one?  The one where the holes in the ozone layer were growing until CFC refridgerants were banned JUST like the same scientists that are warning about global warming advised to do in order to fix the problem?  :LOL:  I don't think you thought through your arguement very well.  :LOL:

they were in fact teaching us in the 70s that an ice age was coming. I watched the guys videos - he completely skirted the FACT that they were swearing we'd be freezing by now.

First of all, stop lying.  It's painfully obvious that you haven't watched one single second of any of the videos.  In fact, an entire video was devoted to pointing out that this supposed "fact" is in fact a LIE.  In fact, it did a darn good job of proving that, too... had you actually watched any of the videos, you would have known that and at least picked a different arguement. 

I was in college when they claimed that the sea level would rise exponentially starting anytime after 2000.(remember that horrible cinematic affront: "Waterworld"? - I realize it was just a movie - a movie only modestly exaggerating the mantra of the day.)

Do you really realize that was a movie that had nothing to do with any scientific studies or papers or anything?  I'm not sure you do know the difference between that and reality.

I saw the strawman video; how convenient - just deny you ever said it and pretend something you "never said" is being attacked. I remember things. it happens.

Again you claim to have actually spent a second watching any of the videos, but yet again I know you didn't, because if you had, you would have seen the playback of the original video footage of those speeches.  But I suppose your memory is more accurate than actual video footage of the same speech... riiiight...  rolleyes

as to pursuing the nasa, and noaa data - no thanks, really.

I know, I figured as much.  You prefer to get your information for oil lobbyists that used to work as tobacco lobbyists.  It's ok, I know.

Not that I don't believe they earned their science credentials legitimately  but that 1: we're relatively new in geological terms at understanding the functions of this planet and the universe (They very often present new data with a little fearmongering BECAUSE part of their strategy to obtain money for research is to scare  the people controlling the purse into believing that more research is needed because they want to research and learn more)
2: I learned firsthand from a military scientist, and it's the same in ALL scientists, that OBTAINING FUNDING requires SCARING PEOPLE. ("we need to develop 'Y' because they may use 'X' in ______ way.")
Just because an argument is sophisticated and beautiful doesn't mean it can't be wrong or just a total lie to get money. - they keep changing the cause/effect/factors.

Let's just forget the fact that NASA, NOAA, and the USGS all have stable funding... funding that wouldn't disappear regardless of what is happening.... let's just forget that for a moment here.  Instead of believing people who have at least some knowledge of what's going on, you prefer to fully trust people who take thousands of your dollars every year and send them to every sheik in oil rich nations around the world other than our own... people who have absolutely no scientific background, but who make a few tens of billions of dollars every week that they can keep people ignoring the problem and buying oil.  In case you still haven't figured it out yet, here's what you're saying: "baaa, I'm a sheeple, please take my money. baaa."
Logged
reinbeau
Super Bee
*****
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 2502


Location: Hanson, MA and Lebanon, ME


« Reply #44 on: June 03, 2009, 07:34:10 AM »

That's all you got?  Biased, unscientific youtube videos of questionable production value?

Credible sources are the key, my friend.  That isn't one.

Why did you even start this thread?  You don't want to learn anything.
You figured that out, did you?  Spewing youtube videos to prove his point is pretty pointless, yet he continues.....I've decided he's nothing more than a tailgater troll, not worth discussing anything with.
Logged


- Ann, A Gardening Beek -  ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

Click for Hanson, Massachusetts Forecast" border="0" height="150" width="256
Bee Happy
Super Bee
*****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 1656


Location: Between Panama city, Florida and Dothan Al.

that's me - setting a phoenix free


« Reply #45 on: June 03, 2009, 08:38:12 AM »


You mean that ozone thing that was fixed when governments took the advice of the scientific community and banned CFC's?  That one?  The one where the holes in the ozone layer were growing until CFC refridgerants were banned JUST like the same scientists that are warning about global warming advised to do in order to fix the problem?  :LOL:  I don't think you thought through your arguement very well.  :LOL:


First of all, stop lying.  It's painfully obvious that you haven't watched one single second of any of the videos.  In fact, an entire video was devoted to pointing out that this supposed "fact" is in fact a LIE.  In fact, it did a darn good job of proving that, too... had you actually watched any of the videos, you would have known that and at least picked a different arguement. 

I was in college when they claimed that the sea level would rise exponentially starting anytime after 2000.(remember that horrible cinematic affront: "Waterworld"? - I realize it was just a movie - a movie only modestly exaggerating the mantra of the day.)

Do you really realize that was a movie that had nothing to do with any scientific studies or papers or anything?  I'm not sure you do know the difference between that and reality.

I saw the strawman video; how convenient - just deny you ever said it and pretend something you "never said" is being attacked. I remember things. it happens.

Again you claim to have actually spent a second watching any of the videos, but yet again I know you didn't, because if you had, you would have seen the playback of the original video footage of those speeches.  But I suppose your memory is more accurate than actual video footage of the same speech... riiiight...  rolleyes

as to pursuing the nasa, and noaa data - no thanks, really.

I know, I figured as much.  You prefer to get your information for oil lobbyists that used to work as tobacco lobbyists.  It's ok, I know.


Let's just forget the fact that NASA, NOAA, and the USGS all have stable funding... funding that wouldn't disappear regardless of what is happening.... let's just forget that for a moment here.  Instead of believing people who have at least some knowledge of what's going on, you prefer to fully trust people who take thousands of your dollars every year and send them to every sheik in oil rich nations around the world other than our own... people who have absolutely no scientific background, but who make a few tens of billions of dollars every week that they can keep people ignoring the problem and buying oil.  In case you still haven't figured it out yet, here's what you're saying: "baaa, I'm a sheeple, please take my money. baaa."

It went from ozone "fixed" -to CO2 -I can tell I'm beating my head here - but the ozone is fixed?  and we're still having problems - now with relatively harmless CO2?

what speech? are you talking about the ice age lie from the seventies or some other speech?
the one about CO2?  - wipe that foam off your mouth sarge and tell me what speech you're referring to? 

I watched the entire 70s video - he never addressed the fact that it was being taught in schools that we had an ice age on the way - did you miss what I was saying - it isn't related to whether the data was eventually disproven - we all know that it was at least dropped.

I said it was just a movie - do you want to dispute that it was an exaggeration of the predictions of the scientific community?
They never said sea levels would be rising drastically by now?
 yes I do have a working memory - which is why I remember being lied to by media and "respectable" organizations of all kinds.

I'm sure they have stable funding - and if they want additional funding they have to make a case for it.

you're assuming I "Fully trust" one organization over another -  of course - it seems you often assume that if someone disagrees with you they're failing to think for themselves - I often get that "think for yourself" garbage - what "think for yourself" really really means is "stop disagreeing and think like me". No thanks, I'll think what IWANT.
« Last Edit: June 03, 2009, 08:52:23 AM by Bee Happy » Logged

be happy and make others happy.
SgtMaj
Queen Bee
****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 1464


Location: Corryton, TN


« Reply #46 on: June 03, 2009, 09:28:26 AM »

That's all you got?  Biased, unscientific youtube videos of questionable production value?

Credible sources are the key, my friend.  That isn't one.

Why did you even start this thread?  You don't want to learn anything.
You figured that out, did you?  Spewing youtube videos to prove his point is pretty pointless, yet he continues.....I've decided he's nothing more than a tailgater troll, not worth discussing anything with.

I'll let you in on a little secret... I started this thread as a social experiment.  You see, on another forum people were wondering how anyone could be so stupid as to lap up everything that well paid lobbyists for the oil industry feed them... and they were discussing if there was any way to possibly get through to them... well of course it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that those people aren't going to actually read studies and articles, they're too lazy and stupid for that, so someone suggested a set of short videos would be the way to go, so we dug these up and decided to put it to the test, and of course I knew just the place to test it out.  It was a two-fold test.  First was to determine if they would reach people that were too lazy to read an article, and the results were pathetically predictable... it was painfully obvious that those people (you people) were too lazy to even spend 6 minutes to watch them in the first place... which is why the very thought that you would have expected me to have come here to learn something about this subject from you is, well, laughable.  It's as funny a thought as a physics professor asking a first grader for advice on solving a physics problem.  What did you expect me to learn anyway?  How to repeat the same lie that was already debunked over and over again?  Next time I need to know how to look foolish I'll be sure to ask for your advice.

The second part of the test was to see if the sandies (that's our little nickname for people like you who run around like ostriches with their heads stuck in the sand, basically willfully ignorant people.  Don't be offended... you sandies have already admitted to purposly being ignorant in this very thread.)  As I was saying, the second part was to lay out the playbook and see if the sandies could adapt or find a new, previously not already debunked arguement.  Results were predictable since the sandies would have had to have spent a couple minutes educating themselves so as to figure out why they shouldn't keep repeating the same lies that were already debunked, thus making them *you* look oh so foolish.

Personally, I'm getting a kick out of this because I'm the guy on the other forum that's always saying that as a society humanity is too stupid to fix the problems facing us without the needless suffering of countless millions.  You all are just proving me right.  Keep it up.  Cheesy

I should probably add that when we're talking about sandies, we're not talking about those of you who when you realized that your point had been debunked either bowed out of the conversation or switched to a different point.  Those of you who fit that description were just misinformed, which is a far cry from being willfully ignorant.  Everyone gets a bit of misinformation from time to time about any topic.  Part of life is sorting through the bs to get to the truth.  So if you fall into this category, please don't assume that I was talking about you in this post... this includes you Kathy. 
« Last Edit: June 03, 2009, 10:34:21 AM by SgtMaj » Logged
SgtMaj
Queen Bee
****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 1464


Location: Corryton, TN


« Reply #47 on: June 03, 2009, 09:57:03 AM »

It went from ozone "fixed" -to CO2 -I can tell I'm beating my head here - but the ozone is fixed?  and we're still having problems - now with relatively harmless CO2?

I can see why you would be beating your head here since the two have absolutely nothing to do with one another.  Go take some more ginko biloba and maybe a little caffine as well and get back to me when you're able to think straight again.

what speech? are you talking about the ice age lie from the seventies or some other speech?
the one about CO2?  - wipe that foam off your mouth sarge and tell me what speech you're referring to?

WATCH THE VIDEOS and you can see for yourself.

I watched the entire 70s video - he never addressed the fact that it was being taught in schools that we had an ice age on the way - did you miss what I was saying - it isn't related to whether the data was eventually disproven - we all know that it was at least dropped.

If you had actually watched the video, what you would have known is that the vast majority of studies from that time period found that any cyclical cooling period would be counteracted by the additional warming caused by additional greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere... only 7 minor studies came to the opposite conclusion.

By way, it's still correct to teach that the earth should be entering a cooling period.  Should is the key word there.

I said it was just a movie - do you want to dispute that it was an exaggeration of the predictions of the scientific community?
They never said sea levels would be rising drastically by now?

First of all, waterworld was based on a fictional screenplay... not any science at the time.

As for sea levels rising drastically by now, they already are.  Predictions for the sea level rise last year were 2mm but sea levels rose by 3mm... 1 and a half times faster than previously predicted.  I suppose you are under the idiotic assumption that climate change is an instantaneous event, but that would just be weather changes.  Climate change normally takes thousands of years, but currently we're on pace to cut the time down to a tenth the normal pace, but we're still talking about many many years, not a single season.

yes I do have a working memory - which is why I remember being lied to by media and "respectable" organizations of all kinds.

Media and scientific research, are two different things... but you already said you're not interrested in looking anything up for yourself... so what's your point here?  The media always has and always will oversensationalize stories because their livlihood depends on their ability to captivate an audience.

I'm sure they have stable funding - and if they want additional funding they have to make a case for it.

Actually, they don't really.  Their get additional funding EVERY year, because multi-trillion dollar industries count on the accuracy of their climate predictions and models (at least for the NOAA).

you're assuming I "Fully trust" one organization over another -  of course - it seems you often assume that if someone disagrees with you they're failing to think for themselves - I often get that "think for yourself" garbage - what "think for yourself" really really means is "stop disagreeing and think like me". No thanks, I'll think what IWANT.

We both know that's not true.  If you wanted to think for yourself you would be interrested in finding out facts so that you could come to your own conclusions about them.  So either you fully trust the oil industry that you keep handing thousands of dollars over to annually, or you just don't want to think at all.  I don't really care which one it is since they both have the same end result.
Logged
Bee Happy
Super Bee
*****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 1656


Location: Between Panama city, Florida and Dothan Al.

that's me - setting a phoenix free


« Reply #48 on: June 03, 2009, 10:45:22 AM »

"We both know that's not true.  If you wanted to think for yourself you would be interrested in finding out facts so that you could come to your own conclusions about them.  So either you fully trust the oil industry that you keep handing thousands of dollars over to annually, or you just don't want to think at all.  I don't really care which one it is since they both have the same end result." - sgt maj

How limited your thinking is. To reject one set of arguments is not necessarily to embrace the opposing view; It may suggest it, if you limit your thinking, but it does not mathematically limit one exclusively to the 'only other' available propagandae.
My position on all of this - ALL OF IT- is skepticism.
Logged

be happy and make others happy.
reinbeau
Super Bee
*****
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 2502


Location: Hanson, MA and Lebanon, ME


« Reply #49 on: June 03, 2009, 12:43:31 PM »

Don't feed the
Logged


- Ann, A Gardening Beek -  ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

Click for Hanson, Massachusetts Forecast" border="0" height="150" width="256
Scadsobees
Galactic Bee
******
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 3198


Location: Jenison, MI

Best use of smileys in a post award.


« Reply #50 on: June 03, 2009, 01:15:09 PM »

I always judge the veracity of the poster by the number of insulting nicknames that they can come up with.  Rather than win by arguments try to sway by feelings.  Sandies...good one! rolleyes

Whoops!  Back to my regularly scheduled programming!
Logged

Rick
SgtMaj
Queen Bee
****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 1464


Location: Corryton, TN


« Reply #51 on: June 03, 2009, 04:06:57 PM »

"We both know that's not true.  If you wanted to think for yourself you would be interrested in finding out facts so that you could come to your own conclusions about them.  So either you fully trust the oil industry that you keep handing thousands of dollars over to annually, or you just don't want to think at all.  I don't really care which one it is since they both have the same end result." - sgt maj

How limited your thinking is. To reject one set of arguments is not necessarily to embrace the opposing view; It may suggest it, if you limit your thinking, but it does not mathematically limit one exclusively to the 'only other' available propagandae.
My position on all of this - ALL OF IT- is skepticism.

There would be nothing wrong with embracing the opposite view, as long as you're willing to actually put forth the effort to find out the facts, but like you said, you're not willing to do that. 
Logged
Bodo
House Bee
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 81

Location: Crawfordville, FL


« Reply #52 on: June 03, 2009, 04:42:18 PM »

There would be nothing wrong with embracing the opposite view, as long as you're willing to actually put forth the effort to find out the facts, but like you said, you're not willing to do that. 


So you know all the facts?   Pot, Meet Kettle.
Logged
Bee Happy
Super Bee
*****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 1656


Location: Between Panama city, Florida and Dothan Al.

that's me - setting a phoenix free


« Reply #53 on: June 03, 2009, 05:02:15 PM »

There would be nothing wrong with embracing the opposite view, as long as you're willing to actually put forth the effort to find out the facts, but like you said, you're not willing to do that. 

So I can fit into the neat little box of limited reasoning you've constructed for me...
Logged

be happy and make others happy.
Jerrymac
Galactic Bee
******
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 6047


Location: Wolfforth Texas


« Reply #54 on: June 03, 2009, 05:15:29 PM »

How Many Scientists Fabricate and Falsify Research? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Survey Data

http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0005738


Do Scientists Ever Fabricate and Falsify Research?

http://www.dakotavoice.com/2009/06/do-scientists-fabricate-and-falsify-research/


Arctic Scientist: IPCC Ignores Natural Causes of Global Warming

http://www.dakotavoice.com/2009/06/arctic-scientist-ipcc-ignores-natural-causes-of-global-warming/


Regulation Magazine
Global Warming: The Origin and Nature of the Alleged Scientific Consensus

http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv15n2/reg15n2g.html
Logged

rainbow sunflower  Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.   rainbow sunflower

 Jerry

My pictures.Type in password;  youview
     http://photobucket.com/albums/v225/Jerry-mac/
Bodo
House Bee
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 81

Location: Crawfordville, FL


« Reply #55 on: June 03, 2009, 05:57:24 PM »

Regulation Magazine
Global Warming: The Origin and Nature of the Alleged Scientific Consensus

http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv15n2/reg15n2g.html


That is actually a very well written article.  I enjoyed it.  Thank you.
Logged
asprince
Super Bee
*****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 1693

Location: Fort Valley, Georgia


« Reply #56 on: June 03, 2009, 06:27:38 PM »

"I'm bored, and I know this topic will bring out the entertaining debate, so let's get it on! "


Sarge,

I have been following this thread from the beginning and I am confused. Do you really believe all the B.S. that you a spouting or do you just enjoy the debate?

Steve
Logged

Politics is supposed to be the second oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resembalance to the first. - Ronald Reagan
Scadsobees
Galactic Bee
******
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 3198


Location: Jenison, MI

Best use of smileys in a post award.


« Reply #57 on: June 03, 2009, 07:25:37 PM »

Guys, GUYS!! Every time that you ignore the FACTS, one of these dies


What happened to your souls that you hate these??

Every mile you drive, every gallon of gas you burn, you are murdering these!!


STOP GLOBAL WARMING!!! THEY ARE FACTS!!!  HOW CAN YOU IGNORE THESE!!!
Logged

Rick
Scadsobees
Galactic Bee
******
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 3198


Location: Jenison, MI

Best use of smileys in a post award.


« Reply #58 on: June 03, 2009, 07:28:05 PM »

Do you realize that the Great Lake water level has risen over 304 mm just in the past YEAR??  Trending that out, the entire continent of North America will be COVERED in just 30 years!!!!

We gotta stop global warming now!!!
Logged

Rick
Jerrymac
Galactic Bee
******
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 6047


Location: Wolfforth Texas


« Reply #59 on: June 03, 2009, 07:33:25 PM »

Last I heard the great lakes were lower than they ever have been.

Way back when the glaciers receded there was a huge lake. This lake sat in a depression made by the weight of the ice pushing down on the land. Now that the weight if the ice was off of it the land started rising. As the land rose more and more water drained off. The land is still rising, there fore the water is still draining. Science channel.  Wink
Logged

rainbow sunflower  Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.   rainbow sunflower

 Jerry

My pictures.Type in password;  youview
     http://photobucket.com/albums/v225/Jerry-mac/
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Beemaster's Beekeeping Ring
Previous | Home | Join | Random | Next
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines | Sitemap Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 1.28 seconds with 21 queries.

Google visited last this page July 08, 2014, 12:06:24 AM