Pure comedy. You have to wonder if people even read what they write. From the Planet In Peril portion of CNN: Team battles Arctic winter to measure melting ice caps
It could be the ultimate test of human endurance: Three British explorers are risking their lives in subzero temperatures to measure the melting Arctic ice cap.
Um, what?
It could be the ultimate test of human endurance: Three British explorers are risking their lives in subzero temperatures to measure the melting Arctic ice cap.
I thought that is what I read.
The team is on a three-month, 621-mile (1,000-kilometer) hike to their final destination at the North Pole. Along the way, taking precise measurements to determine exactly how fast the ice cap is disappearing.
“It’s extremely difficult to live out here. It’s very, very easy to get cold injuries in seconds,” said Martin Hartley, team photographer and filmmaker, via satellite phone.
The team has been braving temperatures as low as minus 40 degrees Fahrenheit/Celsius spending their nights sleeping in tents and their days trudging across the shifting, barren polar expanse.
The unique expedition was prompted by this chilling prospect: The Arctic ice cap is melting at an unprecedented rate, which may lead to a dramatic shift in average global temperatures.
So, it’s really, really, really cold, the kind of cold that risks lives. They are traveling over the ice all the way to the North Pole to measure the supposed melting ice, which they happen to be traveling across. Did I mention that they are traveling across the ice that is supposedly melting at an unprecedented rate, while it is really, really, really cold? I’m going to steal some material from Gateway Pundit
Arctic sea ice growth finished the year in 2008 at the same level as 1979.
The oceans have been cooling since 2003.
Sea ice is growing at the fastest pace on record.
Greenland’s glaciers are stabilizing.
There are growing fears of a coming freeze worse than the ice age.
Alaskan Sea Glaciers are advancing for the first time in 250 years.
And, for the second straight year the Earth is, in fact, cooling… not warming.
In other AGW news, a former supervisor of NASA’s Jim Hansen thinks he should be fired for violating ethic, if not legal, boundaries of the job.
First of all, the only reason you find this story to be humorous is you haven’t the first clue about climate change. Global warming doesn’t mean that the Arctic will be 70 degrees F. Of course the Arctic is cold. Quit being a doof.
Second:
You’ve regurgitated this point before, to which I replied that it is an egregious example of cherry picking data. They have compared the ice extent at its lowest point in 1979 to its highest point last year to make this claim. Still, the trend is downward, and the ice extent for 2008 was still well below the baseline. More lies and distortions that you simply pass on without first exercising even the slightest inkling of critical thinking on your own. Just mindlessly drinking the kool-aid, I see.
Finally, John Theon was NOT Hansen’s supervisor!
What is it with you people and your willingness to spread lies and falsehoods? You know, you complain about Al Gore’s supposed “falsehoods” in his documentary, but when you are asked for specifics, you clam up. And yet, you are much worse. Nearly everything you write here is incorrect.
Baseless gossip about my personal choices in 3… 2… 1…
From Dr Roy Spencers Web site
http://www.drroyspencer.com/
And now my old boss when I was at NASA (as well as James Hansen’s old boss), John Theon, has stated very clearly that he doesn’t believe global warming is manmade…and adding “climate models are useless†for good measure. Even I wouldn’t go quite that far, since I use simple ones in my published research.
About Dr. Roy Spencer
Roy W. Spencer received his Ph.D. in meteorology at the University of Wisconsin-Madison in 1981. Before becoming a Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville in 2001, he was a Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center, where he and Dr. John Christy received NASA’s Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal for their global temperature monitoring work with satellites. Dr. Spencer’s work with NASA continues as the U.S. Science Team leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on NASA’s Aqua satellite. He has provided congressional testimony several times on the subject of global warming.
Dr. Spencer’s research has been entirely supported by U.S. government agencies: NASA, NOAA, and DOE. He has never been asked by any oil company to perform any kind of service. Not even Exxon-Mobil.
Dr. Spencer’s first popular book on global warming, Climate Confusion (Encounter Books), is now available at Amazon.com and BarnesAndNoble.com.
Arctic Sea Ice Underestimated…Missed ice-block the size of California.
Faulty Sensor Underestimates Arctic Sea Ice
Feb. 20 (Bloomberg) — A glitch in satellite sensors caused scientists to underestimate the extent of Arctic sea ice by 500,000 square kilometers (193,000 square miles), a California- size area, the U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center said.
SHUT UP ALREADY.
We need to be kind to our environment, absolutely no doubt.
But we are not killing it with CO2. We will do our best to make sure it stays that way.
There is no Global Warming.
Dennis,
That Roy says it, does not necessarily make it so:
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/01/so_who_is_john_s_theon.php
Trish,
You’ve just contradicted yourself with these two sentences. If you really cared about the environment, you’d put the effort in to try to understand our climate and what we’re doing to it, rather than just drinking the kool-aid. I’ve tried to give you resources and arguments in the past so that you can compare with the “skeptical” information that you’ve accepted to this point, but you’ve so far refused to acknowledge any of it. At the very least, tell me where I’m wrong, rather than ignoring my arguments and moving on to new red herrings.
I tell you what. If you really believe strongly enough in the idea that there is no global warming to make that statement publicly, please provide for me your best argument to that effect. So far I haven’t seen anything that I would consider to be convincing. Maybe you have seen something that I haven’t. Please share it.
Yes, mistakes happen. Science is not infallible. However, when mistakes are found, they are corrected, and in this case, the correction has still left us well below the baseline.
You know, it’s funny that you guys bring up this and other small, insignificant errors or mistakes, and try to use them as “proof” that climate scientists can’t be trusted, when you completely blew off the major changes to Spencer and Christy’s satellite temperature data. Those two published data from satellites and claimed that it contradicted surface temperature trends. Several corrections later, we were left with trends that are very similar to surface trends. “Oh, well, uh… NASA adjusted their numbers for a small region, which resulted in NO change to global temperature numbers.” Puh-leeze.
If you’d rather believe falsehoods and conspiracy theories than scientific evidence, that’s your business, but don’t pretend to be concerned about the environment when you blindly choose ideology over science in perhaps the most important environmental issue we currently face.
It’s not we who are drinking the koolaid, making stuff up, indoctrinating people fro decades, manipulating corporations, and falsifying or enhancing reports to make their case.
It is we who want to live our lives as good productive citizens, and avoid such nonsense as Cap & Trade.
No, you’re just claiming that water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas, despite the fact that this is irrelevant in discussions on climate CHANGE, due to its short atmospheric lifetime, or that the Sun is the primary cause for warming, despite a cooling stratosphere. Are you kidding me?! Deniers make stuff up on a daily basis! Nearly everything Teach regurgitates on this blog is made up from some other source. There’s NEVER and real, verifiable scientific data that is discussed — only conjecture, gossip, and conspiracy theories.
Well, this depends on what kind of “reports” you are talking about. If you’re referring to real scientific papers, deniers don’t put these out in the first place, so there’s nothing to falsify or enhance. If you’re talking about public awareness-type reports, you most certainly DO make stuff up. From Inhofe’s infamous lists of scientists to Fred Singer’s petitions, to the numerous reports that are available on the internet, deniers do nothing but make stuff up. Of course, that’s what you must do when the facts are not friendly to your cause.
How about you actually provide specifics? That’d be a nice change. Then, I’d actually have something specific that I could counter or discuss with you. Is there some specific scientific report that you believe has been falsified?
So do you have a better proposal for how to deal with the threat of climate change? Oh, wait. You don’t understand climate change, so how could you possibly agree on doing anything. This really makes no sense. How does my being convinced by scientific evidence make me any less interested in being a “productive citizen”? Are you living in some alternate reality, in which all who are convinced by scientific evidence are somehow in an evil plot to destroy our country? Am I being branded as some evil, liberal, socialist maniac, whose only goal is to see the US sink into oblivion? That’s pretty demented.
Reasic, for the love of God man, I Do Not Belive In Climate Change as ANYthing Man Can effect or affect! Period.
I know that I don’t have your superior intellect, but I do have common sense, and I do read, and have made my choice based on what I’ve read, including some of the articles you pointed me to. I choose to believe in this side of the argument, not yours. Way I see it my science and it’s scientists are as good as or better than any of yours. Yours are motivated for one reason and mine perhaps for another. Leaving this debate as simple as taking sides.
So No, I see no reason to propose anything globally or nationally in the guise of protecting the environment, especially at the great cost of ruining economies and small (poor) nations.
Trish said: I Do Not Belive In Climate Change as ANYthing Man Can effect or affect! Period.
Belief should have nothing to do with it. That implies faith. Science is about conclusions based a preponderance of the evidence. The fact that you say “period†indicates an unwillingness to consider new evidence (or evidence you are not currently aware of). That’s not how science works. We must always be willing to change our conclusions if new evidence is presented.
Trish said: Way I see it my science and it’s scientists are as good as or better than any of yours.
There is no such thing as “my science†or “your science.†However, I am willing to consider the evidence you find most compelling. What scientific studies have persuaded you most?
I consider the scientific literature summarized in the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report very persuasive. Here’s a link if you’re interested:
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-wg1.htm
Yet another piece of misinformation that you’ve absorbed. Poor nations will be hurt by doing nothing, as they will be the first to feel the effects of reduced crop yields, drought and famine that would result from increased global warming. In addition, the Kyoto Protocol provides exemptions to DEVELOPING nations (nations that haven’t previously emitted a great deal of carbon dioxide), so poor nations would not be affected.
This is part of what I don’t get. You and others claim to have studied the subject enough to feel comfortable making your decision, but when you are challenged on specifics, or presented with a rebuttal, you run. Why can’t you ever defend your position?! You have common sense and you read, so share what you’ve learned. What makes you so convinced?
I don’t pretend to have a superior intellect. In my mind, the difference between you and me is that I’ve tried to study the issue from an objective point of view, while you’ve looked at it through the lens of your ideology.
You couldn’t be more wrong. You don’t have any “science”. Do you have any idea how lopsided the scientific research is? There are literally hundreds of published scientific papers that have contributed to the theory of AGW, and really only a handful that might contradict it. The vast majority of people that you consider to be “scientists” on your side, either don’t specialize in climate sciences, or aren’t actively involved in researching the issue.
This is definitely NOT as simple as “taking sides”. There is a right and a wrong side. True, there are some areas of climate science that could use more research to help hone our understanding, but on the major issues of the causes of climate change, the science is virtually settled. Any real climate scientist (like Roy Spencer or John Christy) will tell you that they crux of their argument lies in the effect of feedbacks like water vapor. They believe them to be negative, rather than positive. If that were you and other deniers’ arguments, I wouldn’t have a problem. My problem is in the ridiculous arguments that you believe in, which demonstrate a complete lack of understanding. No, the Sun is not primarily responsible. No, water vapor is not mostly responsible. Yes, the planet is warming.
If you want to stay locked in ignorance, that’s your choice. I’m just trying to discuss it with you, and like nearly ALL other “skeptics” I’ve encountered, you consistently avoid any specifics or scientific rebuttals. It doesn’t bode well for your credibility. Who else has ever claimed “I know what I’m talking about” and then completely avoided any discussion on the subject?