Global Warming Scientists Trapped in Antarctic Ice

[TerryMathews]

The difference is that I respect the analysis either way.

GTFO. I didnt bring my waders with me today.

 

[fskimospy]

GTFO. I didnt bring my waders with me today.

lol. You're projecting. The science is clear, it's just all a question of whether or not you want to accept the science.

 

[dphantom]

lol. You're projecting. The science is clear, it's just all a question of whether or not you want to accept the science.

not even close. The only thing that is clear is that the Earth has marginally warmed .7C in the last couple hundred years. Dumping CO2 into the atmosphere is not a good thing and we need to find cost effective ways to minimize that. But your argument that we are heading for disaster and it is all man's fault is hardly confirmed; simply a hysterical reaction to man's use of resources.

 

[TerryMathews]

lol. You're projecting. The science is clear, it's just all a question of whether or not you want to accept the science.

So youre 100% certain that our model for global warming is completely accurate? There are no pieces of missing data or parts that might not work the way we think they do?

 

[Darwin333]

You should be able to appreciate the irony however.

Think of it as the counterpart to a social conservative getting caught propositioning in the men's room.

Doesn't prove anything really but makes you chuckle.

Irony is my favorite type of humor and I just don't see it.

I love the show Deadliest Catch and one of the recent seasons had captains talking about how they had never seen the ice come south so early, fast and thick. Yet they have also been talking about the Northeast passage being free of ice and navigable for the first time in generations. Countries like Russia are even doing undersea exploration to try and claim mineral rights in areas that previously couldn't be explored.

From my extensive knowledge of how sea ice works from the Deadliest Catch (that was a joke) it seems like wind speed and direction is the biggest factor. Whats ironic about the wind blowing the wrong way?

 

[TerryMathews]

Irony is my favorite type of humor and I just don't see it.

I love the show Deadliest Catch and one of the recent seasons had captains talking about how they had never seen the ice come south so early, fast and thick. Yet they have also been talking about the Northeast passage being free of ice and navigable for the first time in generations. Countries like Russia are even doing undersea exploration to try and claim mineral rights in areas that previously couldn't be explored.

From my extensive knowledge of how sea ice works from the Deadliest Catch (that was a joke) it seems like wind speed and direction is the biggest factor. Whats ironic about the wind blowing the wrong way?

You're over-thinking this.

Global warming scientists, studying global warming. Stuck in the ice.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Thick as a brick some are.

 

[TerryMathews]

Thick as a brick some are.

Sometimes I think they pretend to not get it because they dont think it should be funny.

 

[werepossum]

Speaking of ignoring the science.... the science says that AGW policies are contributing to death and starvation today!! This isn't theoretical suffering in the future, this is suffering we have created today to avoid the theoretical future suffering. It is a sick and twisted thought process that creates suffering on a mass scale to avoid potential suffering in the future.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/worl...starving-people-in-developing-world-1.1633379

That's a good point, but it's more about poorly chosen policies than underlying causes. I fully agree that food crops or area-intensive fuel crops which replace food crops are a very bad idea, although places like Brazil with very warm, wet climates can do very well with sugar cane. Ideally, we would be converting waste to clean energy, just the science isn't quite there yet. Good CAGW policies like solar water purification and electricity can enhance lives now while also lowering CO2 levels. Ditto with sound innovations in energy conservation, especially in construction, which can pay back often in a few years for little or no initial cost penalty.

Y'know I woke up this morning and I hadn't evolved from yesterday. Obviously this means that evolution is not true.

Yeah . . . Actually that's only true for you. The rest of us are evolving like crazy, we just didn't have the heart to tell you.

Guess I can brag about my new wings now.

Shall we stop wiping the virus and bacteria that try to kill us then?
Or shall we bring back the dinosaurs and the millions of species that were gone before mammals were bigger than mice? Shall we actively transform Antarctica in the same continent that was habitable by dinosaurs (hint: there was no ice there)?

What about the plant life that thrives on higher concentrations of atmospheric CO2?
Should we actively reduce their "food supply"?

Species go extinct. That opens the spot for new species to take the niches those other species occupied.

I have no problem with us fighting back, especially against microfauna where "species" and even "genera" have little meaning anyway. I just don't like us killing macro species because we just can't be bothered to not kill them or to exploit some characteristic unto extinction. For instance, I'll never see a flock of Carolina parakeets simply because they were hunted into extinction, or an ivory-billed woodpecker because we cut too much old growth forest too quickly, or a harelip sucker because - well, no one really knows why harelip suckers died out, much less so rapidly. For the others, to exploit a fleeting advantage we lessened the human experience for centuries to come.

 

[fskimospy]

So youre 100% certain that our model for global warming is completely accurate? There are no pieces of missing data or parts that might not work the way we think they do?

Nope, and that is a transparently silly question. There are errors of degree and errors of kind. We know with an extremely high degree of confidence that the planet is warming and that humans are the primary cause of the recent warming we have experienced. Any result within our confidence intervals will be pretty catastrophic. Therefore, you act.

Climate change deniers have retreated repeatedly in their arguments. Originally they argued it wasn't happening, therefore do nothing. Then they argued it was happening but man wasn't the cause, therefore do nothing. Now they argue either that we aren't certain enough or that we can't stop it.

No matter the facts, their course of action is always the same. That is a sign that their argument is not based on science, but politics and tribalism.

 

[TerryMathews]

Nope, and that is a transparently silly question. There are errors of degree and errors of kind. We know with an extremely high degree of confidence that the planet is warming and that humans are the primary cause of the recent warming we have experienced. Any result within our confidence intervals will be pretty catastrophic. Therefore, you act.

Climate change deniers have retreated repeatedly in their arguments. Originally they argued it wasn't happening, therefore do nothing. Then they argued it was happening but man wasn't the cause, therefore do nothing. Now they argue either that we aren't certain enough or that we can't stop it.

No matter the facts, their course of action is always the same. That is a sign that their argument is not based on science, but politics and tribalism.

Again, please stop arguing with what you wish I said.

 

[Moonbeam]

Sometimes I think they pretend to not get it because they dont think it should be funny.

Where's the humor thread on all the dead caused by the cold snap we're having. People claiming global warming while Americans are freezing to death. Hilarious, no?

 

[TerryMathews]

Where's the humor thread on all the dead caused by the cold snap we're having. People claiming global warming while Americans are freezing to death. Hilarious, no?

So is tastelessness a liberal brain defect?

 

[GaiaHunter]

I have no problem with us fighting back, especially against microfauna where "species" and even "genera" have little meaning anyway. I just don't like us killing macro species because we just can't be bothered to not kill them or to exploit some characteristic unto extinction. For instance, I'll never see a flock of Carolina parakeets simply because they were hunted into extinction, or an ivory-billed woodpecker because we cut too much old growth forest too quickly, or a harelip sucker because - well, no one really knows why harelip suckers died out, much less so rapidly. For the others, to exploit a fleeting advantage we lessened the human experience for centuries to come.

I think the human experience greatly increased in the last few centuries.
There is certainly things humanity did wrong that led to extinction of some species.

Not CO2 though.

Despite what some want us to believe CO2 is not a pollutant or toxic to life.

 

[ralfy]

Richard Muller has always been a Warmist, but at least he tries to be an honest one by dispelling such scientific atrocities such as the hockey stick. He does appear to want to fight with real data sets and not imaginary ones, I'll give him credit for that.

As for the "study", all it does is attempt to verify the temperature record. That is all. Were you ever willing to concede that those were in dispute? No? Then you crow about nothing.

You have shown us that a Warmist believes we've warmed 0.7C. Big !@#$ deal.

Atrocity? There is no such thing:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy#Continuing_research

And the study, which was funded by skeptics, does not only "verify the temperature record." See for yourself.

As for the last part,

"How the IPCC Underestimated Climate Change"

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=how-the-ipcc-underestimated-climate-change

 

[Moonbeam]

So is tastelessness a liberal brain defect?

Thanks for making my point.

 

[fskimospy]

Again, please stop arguing with what you wish I said.

I am simply taking your statements to their logical conclusion. You are trying to have your cake and eat it too.

 

[TerryMathews]

I am simply taking your statements to their logical conclusion. You are trying to have your cake and eat it too.

Nope. Simply not true, no matter how much you wish it was.

 

[fskimospy]

Nope. Simply not true, no matter how much you wish it was.

I sincerely wish it were not true as I find your position deeply irresponsible.

I don't know what else to say other than you're talking out of both sides of your mouth here.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Two previously trapped ships break free of Antarctic ice

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2014/0...-breaks-free-antarctic-ice/?intcmp=latestnews

 

[unokitty]

Galileo the first denier.

After all, the science was clear. All the scientists knew that the sun orbited around the earth.

Uno

 

[bshole]

We know with an extremely high degree of confidence that the planet is warming and that humans are the primary cause of the recent warming we have experienced.

Quantify "extremely high degree of confidence". Sounds more like speculation than science.

What other "science" uses words like that? "May", "probably", etc... What other "science" asks society to cripple itself based on "maybes"?