Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Standard member sasquatch672
    Don't Like It Leave
    01 Jan '14 09:12
    This is delicious. I particularly love the part where the guy says that there's "remarkable consensus in the scientific community" about man-made global warming. Maybe because any apostate who dares duration the religion - excuse me, the science - is excommunicated and has their professional reputation ruined.

    Global warming researcher gets stuck in ice

    A funny thing happened during Australian climate-change professor Chris Turney's venture to retrace a 1912 research expedition in Antarctica and gauge how climate change has affected the continent: Two weeks into a five-week excursion, Turney's good ship MV Akademik Shokalskiy got trapped in ice. It turns out, global warming notwithstanding, that there's so much ice down under that two ice-breaking vessels sent to rescue the research team cannot reach the Australasian Antarctic Expedition.

    Years ago, global warming believers renamed the phenomenon "climate change" - probably because of pesky details like unusually cold weather undercutting the warming argument. Now, just as advocates argue that Earth is approaching a tipping point, there's so much ice floating in Antarctica during the Southern Hemisphere's summer that the Australasian Antarctic Expedition posted in a statement: "We're stuck in our own experiment."

    Does this incident mean that climate change is an illusion or a hoax? Of course not. Even during its summer, Antarctica is subject to extreme weather. "Bad weather is the norm in Antarctica," climatologist Roy Spencer observed.

    But it does show that like the rest of us chickens, scientists have feet of clay. Turney had told journalists that his expedition wanted to collect data that could be used to improve climate models. Too bad the folks who are supposed to predict climate decades into the future are guided by scientists who could not manage to avoid ice floes during a five-week trip.

    "We were just in the wrong place at the wrong time," Turney told Fox News. He believes the ship was stuck in old ice from a 75-mile-long iceberg that broke apart three years ago.

    Fair enough. But there's still the issue of ice volume. Climate changers usually warn about Arctic ice, which has been receding over the last few decades, but rarely address the overall growth of ice in Antarctica.

    "I'm sure some researchers can find a possible explanation where humans are causing both Arctic ice melting and Antarctic ice growth, but I'm skeptical of scientists who blame every change in nature on human activities. Nature routinely causes its own changes, without any help from us," quoth Spencer, himself a climate change contrarian.

    "Sea ice is disappearing due to climate change, but here ice is building up," the Australasian Antarctic Expedition acknowledges. It's a conundrum. If warming is melting ice in the North, why isn't it melting ice in the South?

    Believers seize on all manner of weather - less Arctic ice, more Antarctic ice - as proof of climate change, but as Spencer notes, there is no climate change without man-caused global warming.

    Turney told the Australian Broadcasting Corp. that his goal is to excite the public about science. As for climate change, "in the scientific community, it's remarkably solid." And "self-evident."

    He pushes a framework of science being data-driven and free from politics. And yet it's hard to escape the suspicion that whatever the icebound researchers experience, they will frame it as proof that climate change is unassailable.

    Debra J. Saunders is a San Francisco Chronicle columnist. E-mail: dsaunders@sfchronicle.com Twitter: @DebraJSaunders
  2. 01 Jan '14 09:15
    I'm looking forward to your publications on the subject, sasquatsch.
  3. Standard member sasquatch672
    Don't Like It Leave
    02 Jan '14 21:11
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    I'm looking forward to your publications on the subject, sasquatsch.
    I'm sorry if I offended your religion. Never mind that global warming has stopped for 17 years, or that this year saw a record low in hurricanes and tornadoes, or that climate change scientists looking to document changes in Antarctic ice got stuck in changing Antarctic ice and has to have their silly asses rescued by people who are (much) more attached to reality. Or that both the Arctic and and Antartic ice sheets have thickened at heir fastest rate in recorded history. Or that in 2005, Al Gore predicted that both polar caps would have melted by this year. You are a monk in a religion, filled with mysticism, that conjures facts to suit its beliefs.
  4. 02 Jan '14 22:43
    Originally posted by sasquatch672
    This is delicious. I particularly love the part where the guy says that there's "remarkable consensus in the scientific community" about man-made global warming. Maybe because any apostate who dares duration the religion - excuse me, the science - is excommunicated and has their professional reputation ruined.

    Global warming researcher gets stuck i ...[text shortened]... a San Francisco Chronicle columnist. E-mail: dsaunders@sfchronicle.com Twitter: @DebraJSaunders
    Debra J. Saunders is the token conservative columnist of the San Francisco chronicle. I'm not discounting her views -- her own blog subtitle is "Token Conservative."

    http://blog.sfgate.com/djsaunders/
  5. 03 Jan '14 16:22
    On the news this morning I saw that now the rescue ship might get trapped in the ice as well.

    That would be great!
  6. Standard member sasquatch672
    Don't Like It Leave
    03 Jan '14 20:50
    Originally posted by JS357
    Debra J. Saunders is the token conservative columnist of the San Francisco chronicle. I'm not discounting her views -- her own blog subtitle is "Token Conservative."

    http://blog.sfgate.com/djsaunders/
    I have Fox News on right now and the climate change ship just came on. My 10-year-old stepdaughter just asked me what the story was about. I started with, "Have you heard of global warming?" She said to me, "Yeah that's not real."

    So proud...
  7. Standard member vivify
    rain
    03 Jan '14 20:53
    Originally posted by sasquatch672
    This is delicious. I particularly love the part where the guy says that there's "remarkable consensus in the scientific community" about man-made global warming. Maybe because any apostate who dares duration the religion - excuse me, the science - is excommunicated and has their professional reputation ruined.
    You conservatives said the same thing about evolution.
  8. Standard member sasquatch672
    Don't Like It Leave
    03 Jan '14 20:53
    Originally posted by Eladar
    On the news this morning I saw that now the rescue ship might get trapped in the ice as well.

    That would be great!
    It did get stuck! And the eunuch Chris Hayes (who has never been seen in the same place at the same time with either Rachel Maddow OR Jay Carney) has his panties in a twist over the fact that our ilk are having fun with the situation's irony.
  9. Standard member sasquatch672
    Don't Like It Leave
    03 Jan '14 20:54
    Originally posted by vivify
    You conservatives said the same thing about evolution.
    Evolution is real. It happened. Climate change religion excommunicates its apostates. That's why everybody agrees - it's a cult.
  10. Standard member vivify
    rain
    03 Jan '14 21:03 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by sasquatch672
    Evolution is real. It happened. Climate change religion excommunicates its apostates. That's why everybody agrees - it's a cult.
    Again, you conservatives have said the exact same thing about evolution. Some conservatives only agree with evolution, because they'd seem like complete morons for continuing to fight against it. Climate change seems to be the new "evolution" for this generation of conservatives.
  11. Standard member sasquatch672
    Don't Like It Leave
    05 Jan '14 17:02 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by vivify
    Again, you conservatives have said the exact same thing about evolution. Some conservatives only agree with evolution, because they'd seem like complete morons for continuing to fight against it. Climate change seems to be the new "evolution" for this generation of conservatives.
    So, I suppose those cats at the University of South Wales did not, in fact, openly discuss manipulating and eliminating the mountain of data that didn't support their worldview. The LA Times recently stated that it would no longer accept submittals from people who question the science - they reject the heresy and apostasy. All of the climate "scientists" insist that their conclusions are incontrovertible. They should be congratulated! Theirs is the first science in the history of mankind to reach the end of its knowledge. To hear them, there are no more frontiers in climate science. Never mind that your local meteorologist can't tell you whathe weather will be in five days - these supermen know what the weather will be in fifty years!
  12. 05 Jan '14 17:13
    Originally posted by sasquatch672
    So, I suppose those cats at the University of South Wales did not, in fact, openly discuss manipulating and eliminating the mountain of data that didn't support their worldview. The LA Times recently stated that it would no longer accept submittals from people who question the science - they reject the heresy and apostasy. All of the climate "scientis ...[text shortened]... athe weather will be in five days - these supermen know what the weather will be in fifty years!
    Predicting the climate isn't the same as predicting the weather, you silly goose.
  13. Standard member sasquatch672
    Don't Like It Leave
    05 Jan '14 18:34 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    Predicting the climate isn't the same as predicting the weather, you silly goose.
    They're similar in this respect: the are similarly unknowable as time on the x-axis moves to the right.

    Tell me. These men claim near-clairvoyance when making predictions about the climate. They speak about events fifty years in the future with a certainty usually reserved for events five minutes into the future. In those fifty years, economies will collapse, nations will collapse, political borders will be redrawn, hell, a superbug or several may be responsible for many millions of deaths. However, no one knows which economies, which nations, which borders.

    With so many outcomes so uncertain, how is it that this science, of immeasurable complexity, is so proven? Have all of the men and women in the world with the most capable of brains assembled themselves around a single field of study, and created some sort of psychic superbrain that is able to discern this future, when every other field's future is doomed to remain unknowable? Are today's climate scientists able to speak with such certainty because they alone possess a magical looking-eye?

    When all of the data of the past seventeen years indicate that global warming has stopped, and some argue that we may be at the beginning of a mini Ice Age, when sea ice is thickening at its fastest rate in recorded history, when Al Gore's fantastical claims and predictions are each cruelly and resoundingly refuted by no less an authority than nature herself, when brings indicate that Ancient Rome had a far higher concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide than we do today, do you understand why some of us might bear the slightest reluctance to surrender U. S. sovereignty to the United Nations and open our wallets to the Third World in the name of the climate change religion?
  14. 05 Jan '14 19:05
    Originally posted by sasquatch672
    They're similar in this respect: the are similarly unknowable as time on the x-axis moves to the right.

    Tell me. These men claim near-clairvoyance when making predictions about the climate. They speak about events fifty years in the future with a certainty usually reserved for events five minutes into the future. In those fifty years, economies ...[text shortened]... ited Nations and open our wallets to the Third World in the name of the climate change religion?
    I don't think climate scientists claim that they know precisely how much man's influence is warming the planet. The estimates vary quite strongly. Atmospheric physics is tricky business because the atmosphere is a chaotic system. Any kind of precise prediction is thus a priori doomed. The consensus seems to be that there is strong evidence that man's influence induces some warming. Since this is not my field, I cannot really comment on the validity of their research without resorting to the rigour of the peer review process (which is less than ideal). Nevertheless, you might ask yourself if global warming deniers might have an agenda as well and if they are playing you for a fool.

    As for your paranoid fantasies involving the UN and third world countries, I don't quite see how they pertain to the global warming debate.
  15. Standard member sasquatch672
    Don't Like It Leave
    05 Jan '14 19:13
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    I don't think climate scientists claim that they know precisely how much man's influence is warming the planet. The estimates vary quite strongly. Atmospheric physics is tricky business because the atmosphere is a chaotic system. Any kind of precise prediction is thus a priori doomed. The consensus seems to be that there is strong evidence that m ...[text shortened]... e UN and third world countries, I don't quite see how they pertain to the global warming debate.
    See? Your first paragraph is penultimately reasonable. Utterly devoid of the shrieking that so commonly accompanies a climate change assertion.

    My "paranoid fantasies" were borne out this year. http://rt.com/news/climate-change-walkout-warsaw-050/

    Global warming is the justification for the most massive wealth transfer program in the history of mankind.