Global Warming Scientists Trapped in Antarctic Ice

Page 7 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
Not really, although I can see now from the order of my comments how one might think that (and my apologies). The comment I was addressing initially, was kitty's "But how can they save the world if they can't even save themselves?"

Let me be clear: Rich GW advocates don't operate and navigate ocean going vessels in much the same way maritime diesel mechanics and boatswains don't formulate and test climate change models.

Kitty seems pretty convinced that these folks represent both the consensus of environmentalist opinion on climate change, as well as possessing the ability to effect tax hikes for him over something he questions. Because they're boat got stuck in the ice.

I looked at the links provided, and saw little to substantiate his fear. A George Carlin quote, as much as I adore the man, nay the legend, only did two things for his argument: jack, and shit.

I hope that helps.
From the way they presented the trip in their fundraising, this was their expedition, so unless you have some specific information that the crew screwed up I'd suggest it is their fault. Also possible this is a routine tourist trip and they merely got special priveleges, or even just blatantly lied. Tourists aren't generally allowed to bring Argo crawlers with them - although might be pure lies to get money.

There is a lot to be admired about people, and societies, that clean up their own environment and make a conscious choice choice to limit their impact on the external environment.

But those people are different than the pseudo environmentalists that I met when I lived in Florida. Those were people who had already built their house on the beach and didn't think that anyone else should be allowed to build on the beach.

That is, those were people that were wrapped their 'narrow, unenlightened self-interest' with an environmental wrapper. They didn't impress me. Though, there was no shortage of "white, bourgeois liberals" that seemed impressed.

The Earth is 4.5 billion years old. It doesn't need anyone from this forum to save it.

Though, from what I read, those 'climate change' scientist/tourists stuck in the Antartic ice on the Akademic Shokalskiy do need someone to save them.

LOL

Uno
Yeah, I agree there are plenty of asshats hiding behind environmentalism. Hypocrisy is the human condition, from marriage rights to taxation to environmentalists jetting around the world while trying to eliminate automobiles.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
35,850
10,165
136
Uh, as much as I tend to disagree with eskimopie, he's kinda right here. Global warming = average global temperature going up. That doesn't mean the temperature goes up everywhere, and I'm pretty sure scientists and pundits on both sides of the issue agree on this.

I'll agree when they stop using warm weather events to highlight Global Warming. Until then cold weather events are also fair game.

Russian summer 2010 anyone? Or the US in 2012? They bang the weather drum all the time.
 

BlueWolf47

Senior member
Apr 22, 2005
653
0
76
Quote:
Originally Posted by eskimospy View Post
No, I just respect science. If only more did so.

+1

You can't ce hurting you feelings. Science may point to what is true, but only truthiness can tell you what is right to think.

Sadly, there are people who think that an entire field of study has chosen to take a pure political position and is disregarding scientific integrity. This is while almost every major scientific community has made a statement supporting their hypothesis.
 
Last edited:

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
This is rather amusing. Like when Tim Pawlenty held a global warming event in and around Jan 2006-07 and had to cancel it to due to record cold.
 

umbrella39

Lifer
Jun 11, 2004
13,816
1,126
126
Luckily for those on board the ship froze just before it reached the point on the map where the flat Earth falls off...
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
This is rather amusing. Like when Tim Pawlenty held a global warming event in and around Jan 2006-07 and had to cancel it to due to record cold.
Maybe we should be applauding these people. This is a cost-effective, environmentally clean way of combating global warming.

Luckily for those on board the ship froze just before it reached the point on the map where the flat Earth falls off...
LOL!
 

unokitty

Diamond Member
Jan 5, 2012
3,346
1
0
I love it when the ice wins
My favourite quote of the season comes from Tracy Rogers, a marine ecologist who sometime today will be winched from the research vessel the Akademik Shokalskiy and rescued by helicopter. ‘I love it when the ice wins and we don’t,’ she says. ‘It reminds you that as humans we don’t control everything and that the natural world is the winner here.’

The unintended irony is delicious. If the winner of the fiasco which has been developing in the Antarctic over the past two weeks is the natural world there is little disguising who the losers are, even if, as I suspect, Tracy Rogers can’t quite see it. She and her fellow passengers are on an expedition led by Chris Turney, professor of climate change at the University of New South Wales, to retrace a voyage made by Douglas Mawson a century ago. That Turney has taken a large number of paying passengers along, and is also entertaining reporters from the BBC and the Guardian suggests that this is not simply an experiment but a publicity stunt, too. The idea was that the world would be left gasping at the changes measured by Turney compared with the measurements made by Mawson a century ago, thereby encouraging acceptance of the thesis of man-made climate change...

All has not gone according to plan, however. While Mawson managed to sail directly to the coast of Antarctica..Turney encountered pack ice. They hoped initially to break their way through it, but instead have been marooned...

... had Turney managed to sail to the Antarctic along a route where Mawson had been trapped by ice – it is not hard to imagine how the news would have been reported: as irrefutable evidence of global warming. However, to question whether Turney’s experience challenges his science is, apparently, ‘silly’...

One more observation needs to be made about Turney. When sceptical scientists speak on climate change they are instantly accused of being in the pay of oil companies. Rather lower standards seem to be applied to those on the other side of the debate. Turney openly boasts on his website of his own vested interest: he helped set up a company called Carbonscape ‘which has developed technology to fix carbon from the atmosphere and make a host of green products.’
Uno who also loves it when the ice wins...
 
Last edited:

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
I love it when the ice wins
Uno who also loves it when the ice wins...
This actually makes me like Turney. Assuming it isn't snake oil, technology to fix and use atmospheric (or marine) CO2 at an economically viable price point would be THE killer app for the world regardless of how one feels about CAGW.

I do feel very sorry for the crew, who now face weeks if not months hoping the pack ice will break up before the ship due to someone else' desire to make a propaganda point.
 
Nov 30, 2006
15,456
389
121
I love it when the ice wins
Uno who also loves it when the ice wins...
I personally do think it's "silly" to challenge the science based on Turney's experience. But the article does bring up a fairly valid point regarding double standards for judging the credibility of those who personally profit by either sensationalizing AGW or opposing it (be it personally profiting through oil companies, or companies like Carbonscape or Al Gore's ventures).
 
Last edited:

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,768
6,770
126
I personally do think it's "silly" to challenge the science based on Turney's experience. But the article does bring up a fairly valid point regarding double standards for judging the credibility of those who personally profit by either sensationalizing AGW or opposing it (be it personally profiting through oil companies, or companies like Carbonscape or Al Gore's ventures).

You should love me then, because all my effort to save the world is free. However, because I have no organization to promote my efforts, no charitable endeavor, all I can do is post on a forum where few have any idea of their need. Unlike the Pope who has billions to disperse his message, I speak rather softly. But shame on the Pope for his profit motive. You can't trust a word he says. And the same for anybody else who devotes themselves to saving humanity using the good will of other people to do it.

I was under the impression, though, that Al Gore had more money than God before he began his work. Maybe he gets some feeling of satisfaction other than money from doing it. What do you bet it makes him feel self important. Just another kind of greedy pig, I guess.

But then, maybe I'm too cynical. How would I know if my judgment isn't being impaired by past negative experiences?
 
Nov 30, 2006
15,456
389
121
You should love me then, because all my effort to save the world is free. However, because I have no organization to promote my efforts, no charitable endeavor, all I can do is post on a forum where few have any idea of their need. Unlike the Pope who has billions to disperse his message, I speak rather softly. But shame on the Pope for his profit motive. You can't trust a word he says. And the same for anybody else who devotes themselves to saving humanity using the good will of other people to do it.

I was under the impression, though, that Al Gore had more money than God before he began his work. Maybe he gets some feeling of satisfaction other than money from doing it. What do you bet it makes him feel self important. Just another kind of greedy pig, I guess.

But then, maybe I'm too cynical. How would I know if my judgment isn't being impaired by past negative experiences?
The Koch Brothers have more money than God as well. Maybe they also got some feeling of satisfaction other than money when they financed the BEST study. Being a pig myself, who am I to judge the greediness of other pigs?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkeley_Earth
 

kage69

Lifer
Jul 17, 2003
31,447
47,825
136
From the way they presented the trip in their fundraising, this was their expedition, so unless you have some specific information that the crew screwed up I'd suggest it is their fault. Also possible this is a routine tourist trip and they merely got special priveleges, or even just blatantly lied. Tourists aren't generally allowed to bring Argo crawlers with them - although might be pure lies to get money.


You have that backwards I'm afraid. Unless you have any specific information indicating that for whatever reason, the owners and captain conceded control and responsibility of the vessel to the tourists aboard, then your suggestion is worthless. I'm willing to bet I've spent more time on boats than both of you combined, both private and commercial - never have I witnessed or even heard about untrained tourists or pencil jockies taking over the operations and navigation of an oceangoing vessel. For an afternoon excursion to see marine mammals or sunsets it would be stupid. For a trip to freaking Antarctica - are you kidding me?

Given the destination, the land transportation seems entirely appropriate. Certainly less hassle and more useful than sleds and dogs. No idea why you consider that some kind of smoking gun.

The academic cruise to Baffin Island and areas of Nunavut my family joined years ago was organized by Cornell University, specifically the geology department. 182 passengers consisting almost entirely of professors and grad students, with a small number of cabins available for intrepid sightseers with an interest in the Arctic. Other than laying out an itinerary of what they wanted to see, the task of getting everyone there safe and back again was the responsibility of those with the appropriate maritime training, i.e the captain and crew. The tourists were not consulted on what to do concerning weather, which routes to take, the ideal anchorage locations, or any of the logistics concerned with ferrying people to shore for excursions.

I know you guys really want these folks to have as much egg on their faces as possible, but you're simply being idiots about it. You do realize that larger, more able vessels get trapped in the ice from time to time too, yes? It makes me smile to ponder who both of you are avoiding mention that the Chinese ice breaker got stuck in the ice too. They probably took on some 'advocates' of their own, gave them the wheel, and just went below to play cards until it was announced they got there. I hear that's standard for specialty vessels used to the dealing with those issues too. lol

Time to find another non issue to get riled about guys, this one is making you look more desperate and ideological than normal. The fact that the trip was put together by GW scientist seems to have made you guys ignore the realities of ocean travel and ship operation. You deride the trip as propaganda of sorts, yet you are engaging in the very same thing here to voice your disdain for climate research and those that work on it. If this incident was somehow nothing but pure fail on the part of tourists (who somehow convinced the insurance company involved to let non sailors take over) then I can't wait to hear the story how the experienced Chinese ice breaker crew also got stuck. A French ice breaker was enroute I heard, and is also expected to get stuck. Damn, those advocates are good! They can telepathically project their science fail to the point it affects the operation of other ships! Wow!
 
Last edited:

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
You have that backwards I'm afraid. Unless you have any specific information indicating that for whatever reason, the owners and captain conceded control and responsibility of the vessel to the tourists aboard, then your suggestion is worthless. I'm willing to bet I've spent more time on boats than both of you combined, both private and commercial - never have I witnessed or even heard about untrained tourists or pencil jockies taking over the operations and navigation of an oceangoing vessel. For an afternoon excursion to see marine mammals or sunsets it would be stupid. For a trip to freaking Antarctica - are you kidding me?

Given the destination, the land transportation seems entirely appropriate. Certainly less hassle and more useful than sleds and dogs. No idea why you consider that some kind of smoking gun.

The academic cruise to Baffin Island and areas of Nunavut my family joined years ago was organized by Cornell University, specifically the geology department. 182 passengers consisting almost entirely of professors and grad students, with a small number of cabins available for intrepid sightseers with an interest in the Arctic. Other than laying out an itinerary of what they wanted to see, the task of getting everyone there safe and back again was the responsibility of those with the appropriate maritime training, i.e the captain and crew. The tourists were not consulted on what to do concerning weather, which routes to take, the ideal anchorage locations, or any of the logistics concerned with ferrying people to shore for excursions.

I know you guys really want these folks to have as much egg on their faces as possible, but you're simply being idiots about it. You do realize that larger, more able vessels get trapped in the ice from time to time too, yes? It makes me smile to ponder who both of you are avoiding mention that the Chinese ice breaker got stuck in the ice too. They probably took on some 'advocates' of their own, gave them the wheel, and just went below to play cards until it was announced they got there. I hear that's standard for specialty vessels used to the dealing with those issues too. lol

Time to find another non issue to get riled about guys, this one is making you look more desperate and ideological than normal.
I do not think this is accurate; I think you are spinning this to excuse them and preserve their climate credibility. From the BBC:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-25573096
Rescuers in Antarctica have safely transferred all 52 passengers stranded on the ice-bound research vessel Akademik Shokalskiy.

The Australian rescue operators said the scientists and tourists were now all aboard the ship Aurora Australis.

They were flown there in groups by a helicopter from a Chinese ice-breaker.

The Shokalskiy has been trapped since 24 December. Its 22 crew are expected to remain on board to wait until the vessel becomes free.

The Shokalskiy was trapped by thick sheets of ice driven by strong winds, about 1,500 nautical miles south of Hobart - the capital of the Australian state of Tasmania.

The vessel was being used by the Australasian Antarctic Expedition to follow the route explorer Douglas Mawson travelled a century ago.

'White-knuckle ride'
"We've made it to the Aurora australis safe & sound. A huge thanks to the Chinese & @AusAntarctic for all their hard work!," expedition leader Chris Turney tweeted.
Note that it is called research vessel Akademik Shokalskiy. Note also the expedition leader Chris Turney. Are tourists labeled as expedition leaders?

From the same story:
Despite being trapped, the scientists continued their experiments, measuring temperature and salinity through cracks in the surrounding ice.

One of the aims was to track how quickly the Antarctic's sea ice was disappearing.
Tourists?

From http://www.spiritofmawson.com/ (one of several fundraising sites for the expedition) :
Help support Antarctic science and exploration

We are a public funded expedition and in need your help to support Antarctic science.

2013-2014 marks the centenary of the Australasian Antarctic Expedition led by the great scientist and explorer Sir Douglas Mawson. The amazing tales of adventure, science and tragedy associated with Mawson’s endeavor rank alongside those of Scott, Shackleton and Amundsen and yet this was the most ambitious of them all: three bases, thirty-one land based members, seven major sledging journeys and a full oceanographic program across the Southern Ocean and Antarctica. Mawson’s expedition of 1911-1914 gave the world its first complete scientific snapshot of a new continent. His team explored a vast stretch of eastern Antarctica; discovered new bays, mountains and glaciers; and linked up areas that were previously thought to be in isolation. The resulting 89 scientific reports described Antarctica’s violent and extreme weather, its flourishing plant and animal life, the ocean’s fickleness.

In a celebration of this remarkable endeavour, the new Australasian Antarctic Expedition (or AAE for short) is following the route of its namesake. The three years’s worth of observations gleaned by Mawson and his men provide a unique dataset against which we can compare changes seen today. Drawing on the original datasets of the AAE, we are looking to meld science and adventure, to discover and communicate the changes that have taken place in this remote environment over the last hundred years. Led by Professor Chris Turney and Dr Chris Fogwill, from the University of New South Wales, Sydney, the 2013-2014 expedition is now working its way across the Southern Ocean. By mid-December, we will be attempting to cross the 60 kilometres of sea ice in Commonwealth Bay to reach Mawson’s Antarctic base at Cape Denison, the windiest place on Earth in the ‘Home of the Blizzard’.

We are going south to:

gain new insights into the circulation of the Southern Ocean and its impact on the global carbon cycle;

explore changes in ocean circulation caused by the growth of extensive fast ice and its impact on life in Commonwealth Bay;

use the subantarctic islands as thermometers of climatic change by using peats, lakes, trees and remains of the last ice age to explore the past;

investigate the impact of changing climate on the ecology of the subantarctic islands;

discover the environmental influence on seabird populations across the Southern Ocean and in Commonwealth Bay;

understand changes in seal populations and their feeding patterns in the Southern Ocean and Commonwealth Bay;

produce the first underwater surveys of life in the subantarctic islands and Commonwealth Bay;

determine the extent to which humans have had an impact on this remote region of Antarctica;

and provide baseline data to improve the next generation of climate models and predictions for the future.

We are using the approach pioneered by the great explorers of a century ago to support Antarctic science. Just as Mawson appealed to the public for funds to help support the analysis and publication of his results, we need your assistance. The aim of this Indiegogo campaign is to raise enough money to fund the scientific analysis of our samples and data so we can report what is happening in the south today!

Seems crystal clear that this was a science expedition under Turney's leadership with some ecotourists along to partially subsidize the trip rather than a tourist cruise of which Turney was merely another helpless, hapless victim. Also, the previous kickstarter campaign (which failed miserably) was to buy a third Argo; Turney had already procured two. You can't possibly convince me that a tourism junket to the least hospitable area of the planet is a bring-your-own-ride thing.

As for the Chinese ice breaker, they were stuck attempting to rescue Turney; I hardly think this reflects poorly on their seamanship. Nor do I think the Akademik Shokalskiy getting stuck reflects on the Russian crew's seamanship; I suspect they are a first-rate arctic crew. However, this expedition is to one of the most hazardous areas of our oceans during a period of unusually heavy sea ice. Getting iced in is simply a hazard of the area. Had they succeeded Turney et al would have trumpeted this trip as proof of global warming. Instead they made a bad decision in not waiting for a low-ice period and then didn't get lucky.

Five'll get you twenty that they come back with new insights on how global warming is even worse than they suspected.
 

kage69

Lifer
Jul 17, 2003
31,447
47,825
136
I do not think this is accurate; *snipped for brevity*


You're still doing it. You are conflating organizing a trip with the operation of the transportation, not to mention taking issue with passenger descriptions I took from the articles you guys provided earlier in the thread.

No one is denying this was a scientific expedition, or what Chris Turney's role in it was. What I want to know is why you think passengers with no maritime vessel credentials are accountable for what is normally the responsibility of the Capt and crew. So far you are still failing miserably. You are supporting my suspicion that you, kitty, etc are spinning this as a rebuttal of sorts to their scientific credibility.

I thought it would be obvious that if the weather encountered was severe enough to strand and endanger specially designed vessels and crew specifically trained to deal with the environment then a lowly research vessel devoid of those extras probably won't fair much better. You don't seem to have the faintest clue about what a ships Captain does, or what goes into making a trip like that. Your speculation over Turney is irrelevant, as is the cargo they choose to bring.
I'm curious, did you defend Schettino and blame the passengers when he parked the Costa Concordia on a granite shelf? It's nothing short of amazing you have little issue with divorcing the capt and crew of responsibility for the well being of the vessel.

You know what, I think we're done here. It's clear to me your bone to chew with climate scientists trumps common sense and what little understanding of ocean travel you have. Please return to your little fap session, I'll check back later when I need a laugh. Keep your money, with comprehension issues like yours that retirement account will need everything it can get.

If anyone else here has something, hell anything, that indicates Capt and crew abdicated their stations and responsibilities to the passengers I would like to see it.
 
Last edited:

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
You're still doing it. You are conflating organizing a trip with the operation of the transportation, not to mention taking issue with passenger descriptions I took from the articles you guys provided earlier in the thread.

No one is denying this was a scientific expedition, or what Chris Turney's role in it was. What I want to know is why you think passengers with no maritime vessel credentials are accountable for what is normally the responsibility of the Capt and crew. So far you are still failing miserably. You are supporting my suspicion that you, kitty, etc are spinning this as a rebuttal of sorts to their scientific credibility.

I thought it would be obvious that if the weather encountered was severe enough to strand and endanger specially designed vessels and crew specifically trained to deal with the environment then a lowly research vessel devoid of those extras probably won't fair much better. You don't seem to have the faintest clue about what a ships Captain does, or what goes into making a trip like that. Your speculation over Turney is irrelevant, as is the cargo they choose to bring.
I'm curious, did you defend Schettino and blame the passengers when he parked the Costa Concordia on a granite shelf? It's nothing short of amazing you have little issue with divorcing the capt and crew of responsibility for the well being of the vessel.

You know what, I think we're done here. It's clear to me your bone to chew with climate scientists trumps common sense and what little understanding of ocean travel you have. Please return to your little fap session, I'll check back later when I need a laugh.

If anyone else here has something, hell anything, that indicates Capt and crew abdicated their stations and responsibilities to the passengers I would like to see it.
Ahem.

You have that backwards I'm afraid. Unless you have any specific information indicating that for whatever reason, the owners and captain conceded control and responsibility of the vessel to the tourists aboard, then your suggestion is worthless. I'm willing to bet I've spent more time on boats than both of you combined, both private and commercial - never have I witnessed or even heard about untrained tourists or pencil jockies taking over the operations and navigation of an oceangoing vessel. For an afternoon excursion to see marine mammals or sunsets it would be stupid. For a trip to freaking Antarctica - are you kidding me?

Given the destination, the land transportation seems entirely appropriate. Certainly less hassle and more useful than sleds and dogs. No idea why you consider that some kind of smoking gun.

The academic cruise to Baffin Island and areas of Nunavut my family joined years ago was organized by Cornell University, specifically the geology department. 182 passengers consisting almost entirely of professors and grad students, with a small number of cabins available for intrepid sightseers with an interest in the Arctic. Other than laying out an itinerary of what they wanted to see, the task of getting everyone there safe and back again was the responsibility of those with the appropriate maritime training, i.e the captain and crew. The tourists were not consulted on what to do concerning weather, which routes to take, the ideal anchorage locations, or any of the logistics concerned with ferrying people to shore for excursions.

I know you guys really want these folks to have as much egg on their faces as possible, but you're simply being idiots about it. You do realize that larger, more able vessels get trapped in the ice from time to time too, yes? It makes me smile to ponder who both of you are avoiding mention that the Chinese ice breaker got stuck in the ice too. They probably took on some 'advocates' of their own, gave them the wheel, and just went below to play cards until it was announced they got there. I hear that's standard for specialty vessels used to the dealing with those issues too. lol

Time to find another non issue to get riled about guys, this one is making you look more desperate and ideological than normal. The fact that the trip was put together by GW scientist seems to have made you guys ignore the realities of ocean travel and ship operation. You deride the trip as propaganda of sorts, yet you are engaging in the very same thing here to voice your disdain for climate research and those that work on it. If this incident was somehow nothing but pure fail on the part of tourists (who somehow convinced the insurance company involved to let non sailors take over) then I can't wait to hear the story how the experienced Chinese ice breaker crew also got stuck. A French ice breaker was enroute I heard, and is also expected to get stuck. Damn, those advocates are good! They can telepathically project their science fail to the point it affects the operation of other ships! Wow!
Evidently someone WAS denying this was a scientific expedition and Chris Turney's role in it - by repeatedly calling them tourists.

Chris Turney was THE expedition leader. He decides when the expedition sails and where it sails. In this case he had a very special route, recreating Mawson's voyage. True, I'm sure he did not actually pilot the ship. Are you perhaps asserting that miles of pack ice is something a competent skipper could simply steer around? 'Cause those of us without your extensive and not doubt infallible nautical expertise tend to believe that would be difficult even if you were not attempting to retrace a historic cruise. Otherwise there probably wouldn't be so many ice breakers in the area.

And yeah, I figured we'd be through once I posted proof that these were anything but tourists. If you cannot see the humor in a group of "climate scientists" getting stuck in sea ice while seeking to demonstrate global warming, well, I guess the world needs humorless dicks too.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
88,013
55,453
136

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.
 

michal1980

Diamond Member
Mar 7, 2003
8,019
43
91
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.

Your spin so strong.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
88,013
55,453
136
Your spin so strong.

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.
 

unokitty

Diamond Member
Jan 5, 2012
3,346
1
0
antarctica-trapped-ship.jpg


In the Antarctica on a Polar Party Ship

With the MS Akademik Shokalskiy research vessel firmly embedded in ice and costs of the mammoth rescue effort mounting, the “scientific” Australasian Antarctic Expedition (AAE) led by Professor Chris Turney has morphed into a debacle that has put dozens of lives and property at risk. In under-estimating the world’s harshest environment and through slipshod planning ... expedition organizers may have recklessly and negligently put the lives of the 74 passengers in jeopardy.

The purpose of the AAE expedition was to take a science team of 36 women and men south to discover just how much change has taken place at Mawson Station over 100 years. The expedition was also intended to replicate the original AAE led by explorer Sir Douglas Mawson a century ago, in 1913. The new expedition was to be led by Prof. Chris Turney, a publicity-hungry professor of climate change at Australia’s University of New South Wales.

... the expedition was designed to generate lots of publicity. ... 4 journalists from leading media outlets who would feed news regularly, and later report extensively on the results and findings. All this in turn would bring loads of attention to a region that is said to be threatened by global warming...

What made the expedition even more dubious is that Turney and his team brought on paying tourists... According to the AAE website ... “The site berths on board are available for purchase.” Prices start at $8000!

The expedition brought with it 4 journalists, 26 paying tourists.

Here it seems that the obvious risks and hazards of bringing tourists to the world’s harshest environment in a budget-priced vessel unable to handle ice-breaking may have been brushed aside, or at least played down. Was this reckless on the part of the expedition? That Antarctica is a harsh environment was in fact known to expedition leader Chris Turney: Bild online here quotes Turney: “In the Antarctic the conditions are so extreme that you can never make forecasts.” Is this an environment you’d want to bring unfamiliar tourists in – on a vessel that cannot even break ice?

Even as costs for the rescue efforts ran up and international rescue teams scrambled, putting their own lives and limbs at risk, Turney and the passengers partied like it was spring break. German Bild here describes an eerily manic atmosphere, calling it the “Party Polar Ship“:

"...Things are going so fantastically well here that I’ve already made a million photos“, said Alicia Guerrero. “The mood on board is fantastic; we’re dancing on the ice.“

Bild adds: It seems like nothing absolutely matters to them, being trapped in bitter cold nowhere.”

...Why the vessel got trapped in the first place may be because Turney never bothered to look at sea ice charts, which showed near record high levels of sea ice surrounding Antarctica. Also, Turney even denied that the overall sea ice trend was expanding around the continent. Fox News writes:

Turney said it was ‘silly’ to suggest he and 73 others aboard the MV Akademic Shokalskiy were trapped in ice they’d sought to prove had melted. He remained adamant that sea ice is melting, even as the boat remained trapped in frozen seas.”

...it seems they lacked competent weather forecasting services. Why wasn’t it possible to see the massive sea ice coming? In the harshest environment on the planet one would think expert local weather forecasting is absolutely essential. There was no one on board who could give weather and sea ice forecasts?

...It’s a mystery how there was no one was on board to monitor sea ice activity and that no one saw it coming. Turney also told FoxNews.com:

We were just in the wrong place at the wrong time.”

That sort of thing normally happens to those who neglect monitoring weather forecasts, sea ice charts and real conditions. They can predict the climate for the year 2100 but not tomorrow’s wind and sea ice motion?

And when the Australian icebreaker gave up trying to reach the research vessel because of a snowstorm, he called the storm “shocking” – as if it were something he had never experienced. Clearly Turney likes having it both ways: On one hand, depending on the occasion, things are warming and comfy in Antarctica and so it’s no problem bringing tourists along on joy ride in a regular ship, but on the other hand, when things go wrong, it’s always because of “extreme, unpredictable conditions” and so it isn’t his fault.

When operating in the world’s most hazardous regions, there’s no excuse for not working doubly diligently. Clearly Turney’s expedition completely underestimated the task at hand and he now finds himself in it way over his head.

Sweeping the matter under the rug and attempting to laugh it off is an invitation for the next debacle. If Turney-like expeditions are allowed to continue, the Antarctic will soon turn into a junkyard of sunken ships and toxic waste.
The planet is going to be saved by rich white people taking $8000 vacations to Antarctica?

Who da thunk it?

Uno
 
Last edited:

piasabird

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
17,168
60
91
It is Summer Time in the Antartic.

How does this work?

Lets take a boat down and go into the coldest, most ice infested area on earth! What could go wrong with that?