Global Warming Scientists Trapped in Antarctic Ice

[kage69]

Ahem.


Evidently someone WAS denying this was a scientific expedition and Chris Turney's role in it - by repeatedly calling them tourists.

Now that's just sad.
I'll take by this pathetic response you are still unable to wrap your head around the concept of maritime travel in regards to the ship and crew. Not really that surprising, you've been acting like a broken record since this thread started. What is surprising to me is that you are now trying to insinuate that I've been maintaining there were no scientists aboard...even after I posted about the presence of Australian scientists aboard. If you take exception with the term 'advocate,' perhaps you should take it up with the writer of the link kitty provided, as that's where the term came from. I included 'tourists' because their were actual tourists aboard, also from his link. Wtf is your malfunction man? This debate stuff doesn't work too well if you cherry pick what others say, but then I guess that's not your goal here. There's science to repudiate! Btw, "pencil jockies" is a term I've long used to describe academics and scientists, and I'm far from the only person who uses it. Get the pole out of your ass.

Oh there's humor here alright, and you're doing a great job supplying it. In particular, you avoiding the majority of what I wrote while basically repeating yourself is pretty amusing.

I don't think I'm going to humor you parrots anymore, your circle jerk seems more important than acknowledging what every skipper on the freaking planet knows. In possum land, I guess Schettino abandoning ship and shirking his responsibilities as Capt. isn't what the world was outraged and disgusted over at all. It was because, um, he was having dinner with his mistress, or something. Yeah. Newsflash for you bub, one does not need extensive and infallible nautical expertise to acknowledgment the roles of seagoing crews. Reading comprehension and not having your head up your ass definitely helps though.

 

[schmuckley]

Oh, I didn't see your question.



More than anything though I want us to fund alternative energy sources in order to make them more price competitive with oil.

That was done Obama's 1st term.

http://www.wnd.com/2013/05/another-obama-green-company-goes-belly-up/

http://forcechange.com/983/billions...ment-on-alternative-fuel-cars-little-to-show/

http://www.scoop.it/t/green-auto-technology

It amounted to huge amounts of government waste is all.

I know this from personal observation;as the government payed for about 150 acres of sorghum to be planted and then abandoned the project.It sat there dead until the next leaser plowed it under.(at his own expense)

The plants to synthesize the fuel were funded..but scrapped..just..crap all the way around.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Edit: Is it OK for me to laugh about it now?

No, apparently the ship that rescued these people is now stuck as well.

 

[fskimospy]

That was done Obama's 1st term.

http://www.wnd.com/2013/05/another-obama-green-company-goes-belly-up/

http://forcechange.com/983/billions...ment-on-alternative-fuel-cars-little-to-show/

http://www.scoop.it/t/green-auto-technology

It amounted to huge amounts of government waste is all.

I know this from personal observation;as the government payed for about 150 acres of sorghum to be planted and then abandoned the project.It sat there dead until the next leaser plowed it under.(at his own expense)

The plants to synthesize the fuel were funded..but scrapped..just..crap all the way around.

lol, no. (nice worldnetdaily link and others, btw. You know those websites are for crazy people, right?)

It was done in a very small way, and it is funding for RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT, which inherently doesn't pan out sometimes. That's how research works.

Remember, basic economics dictates that we still need large increases in government spending. This is a good way to do it.

 

[schmuckley]

lol, no. (nice worldnetdaily link and others, btw. You know those websites are for crazy people, right?)

It was done in a very small way, and it is funding for RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT, which inherently doesn't pan out sometimes. That's how research works.

Remember, basic economics dictates that we still need large increases in government spending. This is a good way to do it.

Yeah..what we need is large increases in gov't spending,
so we can be taxed more;and pump even less money back into the economy.

 

[fskimospy]

Yeah..what we need is large increases in gov't spending.

I'm just telling you what the economics says. If you find your political ideology to be more important than that it's your business.

 

[GaiaHunter]

Economists and Global Warming, erm, Climate Change Scientists go well hand in hand.

-----------------------------------------------------------
Everyone knows that if this expedition had find no ice the headlines and news reports would be "Man is responsible for ice free Antarctic" or "Climate is changing faster than normal as seen by the Antarctic expedition", etc.

Everyone also knows that the reason MSM aren't making ironic remarks about this situation is because they have chosen sides and they don't want the public to laugh at the Climate change/global warming like everyone I told about this had a laugh.

Once a theme is about sides, it isn't about science anymore.

 

[fskimospy]

Economists and Global Warming, erm, Climate Change Scientists go well hand in hand.

So true! Both are fields that conservatives ignore when they give them information that conflicts with conservative political orthodoxy.

Might want to add biology in there too.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

No, apparently the ship that rescued these people is now stuck as well.

It's a mess down there right now as Antarctica sea ice extent is at record levels since these measurements were first recorded in 1979.

 

[Jaskalas]

What I find baffling about this is that we all know whether or not the ship was trapped by ice says absolutely zero about the validity of the scientific consensus on global warming, and in fact any news story that attempted to tie the two together would be actively misinforming its readers. Still, climate change deniers think that NOT misinforming readers is a sign of media bias.

You can't make this stuff up.

Why have they all agreed to be mum on WHY the ship is out there? Seems like fairly rudimentary information with no reason to hide it. Unless it's part of their political agenda and looks embarrassing.

You're right, it says nothing of AGW. Imagine how they'd bury a real threat to their agenda, if something this minor must not be mentioned. They sell this story short in order to protect their own kin from even the most minor of inconvenient truths.

 

[IGBT]

great place for the "Ship Of FOOLS" and alarmist eco-KOOKS to get stuck. Who paid for this folly?? The tax payer??

 

[fskimospy]

Why have they all agreed to be mum on WHY the ship is out there? Seems like fairly rudimentary information with no reason to hide it. Unless it's part of their political agenda and looks embarrassing.

You're right, it says nothing of AGW. Imagine how they'd bury a real threat to their agenda, if something this minor must not be mentioned. They sell this story short in order to protect their own kin from even the most minor of inconvenient truths.

So you think that news sources leaving out details you fully agree would be misleading and inconsequential is evidence of some kind of agenda.

How does that make sense?

 

[schmuckley]

So you think that news sources leaving out details you fully agree would be misleading and inconsequential is evidence of some kind of agenda.

How does that make sense?

It makes perfect sense.

The details left out are quite relevant and amusing,actually. :awe:
I.E. Ship full of global warming scientists.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

 

[werepossum]

lol, no. (nice worldnetdaily link and others, btw. You know those websites are for crazy people, right?)

It was done in a very small way, and it is funding for RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT, which inherently doesn't pan out sometimes. That's how research works.

Remember, basic economics dictates that we still need large increases in government spending. This is a good way to do it.

I like the way you juxtaposed calling others crazy in the same post you called for large increases in government paying to plant crops that are then allowed to rot in the name of basic economics. Many proggies would be afraid to look that stupid but you sir do not know the meaning of the word fear.

 

[werepossum]

Now that's just sad.
I'll take by this pathetic response you are still unable to wrap your head around the concept of maritime travel in regards to the ship and crew. Not really that surprising, you've been acting like a broken record since this thread started. What is surprising to me is that you are now trying to insinuate that I've been maintaining there were no scientists aboard...even after I posted about the presence of Australian scientists aboard. If you take exception with the term 'advocate,' perhaps you should take it up with the writer of the link kitty provided, as that's where the term came from. I included 'tourists' because their were actual tourists aboard, also from his link. Wtf is your malfunction man? This debate stuff doesn't work too well if you cherry pick what others say, but then I guess that's not your goal here. There's science to repudiate! Btw, "pencil jockies" is a term I've long used to describe academics and scientists, and I'm far from the only person who uses it. Get the pole out of your ass.

Oh there's humor here alright, and you're doing a great job supplying it. In particular, you avoiding the majority of what I wrote while basically repeating yourself is pretty amusing.

I don't think I'm going to humor you parrots anymore, your circle jerk seems more important than acknowledging what every skipper on the freaking planet knows. In possum land, I guess Schettino abandoning ship and shirking his responsibilities as Capt. isn't what the world was outraged and disgusted over at all. It was because, um, he was having dinner with his mistress, or something. Yeah. Newsflash for you bub, one does not need extensive and infallible nautical expertise to acknowledgment the roles of seagoing crews. Reading comprehension and not having your head up your ass definitely helps though.

If you guys have to spin like this the least you could do is strap on some magnets and generate some enviromentantally friendly clean electricity.

I look forward to you upgrading Turney et al from the crew's hapless tourists to actual kidnap victims taken into sea ice against their better professional judgement. Until then, perhaps you can advocate punishing the crew for taking the expedition leader into treacherous waters with their crazy idea of recreating Mawson's voyage.

 

[Jaskalas]

So you think that news sources leaving out details you fully agree would be misleading and inconsequential is evidence of some kind of agenda.

How does that make sense?

A ship is stuck in Antarctic Sea Ice... the reason for it being there, inconsequential? To AGW yes, but not to the news story.

What makes sense is to report the story as it is, not to decide something which may embarrass your agenda should be conveniently left out. I suppose what you're doing now is attempting to dismiss this information, to pretend it does not blatantly highlight the agenda of those who hid it from the public.

 

[kage69]

If you guys have to spin like this the least you could do is strap on some magnets and generate some enviromentantally friendly clean electricity.

You're even stuck on Repeat with your lame burn attempts! I've lost count of the times I've seen you post your magnet punchline.


That's a damn shame. lol

 

[schmuckley]

A ship is stuck in Antarctic Sea Ice... the reason for it being there, inconsequential? To AGW yes, but not to the news story.

What makes sense is to report the story as it is, not to decide something which may embarrass your agenda should be conveniently left out. I suppose what you're doing now is attempting to dismiss this information, to pretend it does not blatantly highlight the agenda of those who hid it from the public.

That's what I'm talkin' 'bout!
You see,I can still remember when news was not slanted.

 

[fskimospy]

A ship is stuck in Antarctic Sea Ice... the reason for it being there, inconsequential? To AGW yes, but not to the news story.

What makes sense is to report the story as it is, not to decide something which may embarrass your agenda should be conveniently left out. I suppose what you're doing now is attempting to dismiss this information, to pretend it does not blatantly highlight the agenda of those who hid it from the public.

It doesn't highlight the agenda. In actuality I wish that the news media did have that agenda, as the agenda is simply being pro-science.

If anything the news media has been friendly to climate change denialism to an ENORMOUS extent over the last decade or two. Despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, news stories frequently adopt a 'he said, she said' attitude when it comes to climate change articles.

It shows just how skewed the debate has become when treating an opinion backed by enormous evidence equally to dishonest cranks is overlooked, but the lack of an admittedly inconsequential byline is viewed as bias. Just how nuts is that?

 

[BUnit1701]

You're the guys who are mad that the media isn't misinforming its readers to conform to your political viewpoint. It gets even funnier when you claim that people not doing it is 'spin'.

This is probably the same way conservatives come to the conclusion that the media is biased. If you aren't offering conservative spin, you must be biased the other way. Lol.

I love how leaving out detail is 'not misinforming' to you. If it is news they are trapped, how is it not news why they are there?

 

[werepossum]

I love how leaving out detail is 'not misinforming' to you. If it is news they are trapped, how is it not news why they are there?

He's using the NYT system - all the news that fits, we print. An expedition of climate scientists sailing through an area formerly choked in sea ice fits the agenda. An expedition of climate scientists getting stuck in sea ice does not fit the agenda. Therefore the story must be reframed to just a bunch of guys who happened to get stuck, end of story.

At least the MSM is being more honest than Kage who insists these are merely tourists trapped by the callous incompetence of a vile crew who irresponsible sailed them into sea ice.

 

[Fern]

What I find baffling about this is that we all know whether or not the ship was trapped by ice says absolutely zero about the validity of the scientific consensus on global warming, and in fact any news story that attempted to tie the two together would be actively misinforming its readers. Still, climate change deniers think that NOT misinforming readers is a sign of media bias.

You can't make this stuff up.

So, someone arranges a trip to the Antarctic, not an inexpensive or easy thing to do, whose sole point is to demonstrate the validity of global warming by evidencing the lack of ice and should the media mention this purpose for the trip it would be guilty of "actively misinforming its readers"?

Astounding.

Fern

 

[davmat787]

In an earlier post in the thread, I mentioned an expedition by the famed Earnest Shackleton whose ship also became stuck in pack ice just over 100 years ago. In that thread, I also mentioned an excellent documentary on the subject, which includes original photos from that trip and the ship being eaten by pack ice it was stuck in.

The bravery, endurance, and pure hell they went through to rescue themselves is an amazing story, I very much recommend setting your DVR's to record this.

Sure enough, Smithsonian is airing it again @ 2:00 AM Saturday morning. Here in Seattle, Smithsonian HD is ch714. Below is a link for the show, along with a channel finder for your neck of the woods.

http://www.smithsonianchannel.com/sc/web/show/3370282/shackletons-frozen-hell

EDIT: you can watch the documentary in full on the link above.

 

[michal1980]

It doesn't highlight the agenda. In actuality I wish that the news media did have that agenda, as the agenda is simply being pro-science.

If anything the news media has been friendly to climate change denialism to an ENORMOUS extent over the last decade or two. Despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, news stories frequently adopt a 'he said, she said' attitude when it comes to climate change articles.

It shows just how skewed the debate has become when treating an opinion backed by enormous evidence equally to dishonest cranks is overlooked, but the lack of an admittedly inconsequential byline is viewed as bias. Just how nuts is that?

It just shows media basis that you are too blind to see.

What the media does not report is as much evidence of bias as what it does. In some ways more so. Because not reporting the news leaves the public ignorant. Only someone with an agenda works to hide the facts