Ice-Bound Ship Was On Global Warming Mission

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

That’s how this whole issue works. One scientist being wrong suddenly casts serious doubt on the findings of ALL scientists, and one scientist being right is simply an irrelevant aberration.[/quote]

You do realize you’re doing this exact same thing in reverse right?

Once again, I’m not arguing against global warming occurring. But this needs to be pointed out.

[/quote]

I know exactly what I’m doing here. I want an answer from someone. Why is it that, in the minds of many on here, it’s always the pro-global warming scientists who are the conspirators? Why is it that the anti-global warming crowd is assumed to be the benevolent ones here? Global warming scientists will have work and will get paid regardless; there’s always research to perform and studies to write. And the fact is that SOMEONE is wrong on this issue, and those people are still getting paid. But who has something to lose in the race? The businesses that would suffer if they had to enact harsh anti-carbon emissions standards, that is who.

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
The govt is not capable, I cannot think of one instance where I remotely suggested it is competent. I did not manipulate anything, my opinion is formulated by the government’s ACTIONS, not their claims.

Competency gets paid in the long run…in an honest world. That is a far cry from the world of politics. You are talking about how things should be, I am talking about how things really are. I am going to tell you right now, that I am not the guy who falls for the benevolent government scam that most sheeple fall for. There are only 2 kinds of people who go into government, the controlling and the criminal. Neither benefit the people.

My opinion of Global Warming is that no one accurately understands the climate, not accurate enough to make predictions. My suggestion of government corruption is based on their (government’s) claims which did not pan out. Not only did they not pan out, almost the exact opposite happened. There is more fucking snow throughout the midwest and East Coast than they have seen in years.

Here in Cali, there is now a massive rain warning, so we have both a drought and a rain warning in the same week. This is my point. No one has a clue what’s going on here Coop. And the last decade, Californians drove less, so why did we get more dry with less carbon emissions ? You don’t know, neither do I, but I am not claiming shit. [/quote]

This last paragraph reveals a stunning level of ignorance on the subject. Do you really think that global warming is most apparent in the areas that produce the most carbon emissions? Have you ever heard of global winds? Jet streams? Did you know that it can rain during a drought? Did you know that you can have a massive storm in the middle of a drought?

Do you even know what a drought is? It has nothing to do with the weather. They are the result of weather, but they are not weather. We have had so little rain the last several years that even if we had a massive El Nino system sitting over us for the rest of the winter/spring, we wouldn’t be out of it?

And as far as the abnormally cold weather in other parts of the U.S., most scientists theorize that the increased temperatures at the northern pole (which is a fact, not conjecture) has forced colder air masses further south than they normally would travel along the jet stream. Again, this is why people have started calling it climate change instead of global warming, even though we have seen a steady increase in the globe’s temperature over the last several decades. Warming in certain areas will have an adverse effect in other areas due to warmer air causing shifts in the normal flow of the jet streams in various regions.

[quote]MaximusB wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:
I was driving down the freeway once and got pulled over for speeding. Since it turned out the radar gun was defective, it must be that the cop was wrong about me ever driving down the freeway to begin with.[/quote]

Stop comparing the fucking end of humanity with a speeding ticket.

Dramatize much ?[/quote]

I guess you don’t know the difference between a comparison and an ANALOGY. No, they are not comparable. But they are analogous.

[quote]DBCooper wrote:
I want an answer from someone. Why is it that, in the minds of many on here, it’s always the pro-global warming scientists who are the conspirators? Why is it that the anti-global warming crowd is assumed to be the benevolent ones here? Global warming scientists will have work and will get paid regardless; [/quote]

what do we have to lose in carbon footprint taxes?

when 85% (sounded like a good number) of the media excludes any dialogue from scientists that dispute man made global warming, you have to ask why?

it’s just another way to hamstring America. let’s all ride bikes for florida spring break and turn out the lights when you go to the bathroom.

[quote]conservativedog wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:
I want an answer from someone. Why is it that, in the minds of many on here, it’s always the pro-global warming scientists who are the conspirators? Why is it that the anti-global warming crowd is assumed to be the benevolent ones here? Global warming scientists will have work and will get paid regardless; [/quote]

what do we have to lose in carbon footprint taxes?

when 85% (sounded like a good number) of the media excludes any dialogue from scientists that dispute man made global warming, you have to ask why?

it’s just another way to hamstring America. let’s all ride bikes for florida spring break and turn out the lights when you go to the bathroom. [/quote]

Look, I don’t really like the idea of a carbon tax. I think there is a solution to the climate change/global warming issue that we face. I’m not sure exactly what it is because I am not sure what is going on with the climate to begin with.

I believe that the majority of the evidence points to some level of anthropogenic factors contributing to an accelerated rise in global temperatures over the last few decades. I believe the evidence points this way because it does, not because there is some conspiracy at hand to defraud businesses and their customers with phony studies.

I don’t think the solution entails denying that any of this is going on to begin with. It’s one thing to say that there is some sort of issue at hand, but that taxing carbon emissions is not the solution to it. It’s another thing entirely to say that carbon taxes are not the solution because there is no problem to begin with. That is a huge distinction.

I have said on here in the past that part of the solution entails reducing gov’t expenditures, subsidies, funds, and so on that go to state/county levels in areas that are prone to increased issues related to further climate change. We should begin to reduce federal expenditures in areas that are vulnerable to droughts, fires, eroding coastlines, rising water levels, floods, and so on.

I don’t think the issues are unmanageable at all. I also don’t think these things will become major issues overnight; the changes will be slower and more gradual than most probably think. But they will happen, and there will be the appearance that they are happening very quickly if we are behind in our efforts because we refused to believe anything was even going on to begin with.

It is simply a matter of at least trying to adjust to the changes, rather than vainly use taxes to try to reverse what could be mostly irreversible at this point. While I think scientists have a fair approximation of what is going on, I don’t think they’re very close to understanding whether or not a long-term reversal is possible. Until we know that, we should proceed under the assumption that this is going to happen slowly and we need to make incremental changes in key areas at key times.

I think insurance costs are certainly something that will rise if there are more and more homes going up in flames during forest fires, or getting washed away in some freak warm storm that melts a huge snowpack or something like that. There are a lot of major cities, such as New Orleans and Sacramento, that sit well below sea level and are surrounded by vulnerable levees.

We should also change how we run our national parks, or privatize them entirely since private owners are more likely to take care of the property well. Regardless, we need to start trying to get these fucking eco-terrorist organizations to stop barring certain types of logging in certain areas.

There are all sorts of national parks all over the west/southwest portion of the country that are filled with dry underbrush and leftover burned wood from previous fires, all of which is a huge fire waiting to happen. But we can’t go in and clear it out because we can’t fuck with the “natural” state of the parks to that extent.

We should start clearing shit out of there on an unseen level, too, not some half-hearted compromise bullshit, because climate change will most likely continue to dry out these areas. The Sierra Nevadas and Cascade Range in particular are very vulnerable right now, even with the recent rain we’ve been hit with out here.

The northern and northeastern regions of the country need to get ready for more winters like this one, instead of thinking it’s some sort of freak event that will won’t be seen for another generation once summer hits.

We should stop subsidizing water-intensive crops all over the country. Rice in particular shouldn’t be subsidized anymore, since we’re paying to ship about half of all the rice grown here out of the country.

We should stop federal funds going to building infrastructures in nascent cities near deserts, such as LA, Vegas, pretty much all of AZ and NM, maybe parts of west Texas/Oklahoma, or southern Utah and most of NV as well.

But none of these practical, foresightful preparations can be made if people keep burying their heads in the sand about whether we’re even experiencing climate change or not.

[quote]pushharder wrote:
90 Percent Ice Coverage Breaks Lake Michigan Record

http://www.newsmax.com/US/Lake-Michigan-ice-record-weather/2014/03/04/id/555947#ixzz2vaHpJQTE

[/quote]

It’s been fucking cold as shit here in the Wolverine state, this winter. People are literally walking a half mile from the piers out onto the ice of Lake Michigan; we’re talking large crowds of people doing this.

If AGW is real, it’s totally forgotten about Michigan. LOL

Thanks to global warming we are all in danger of dying from Mongol hordes.

The forgotten victims of global cooling.

I just watched this documentary called the day after tomorrow. Seriously scary shit

Some light reading.

Antarctic sea ice hits 35 year record high

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Antarctic sea ice hits 35 year record high

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/wp/2013/09/23/antarctic-sea-ice-hit-35-year-record-high-saturday/[/quote]

Since there has been a cooling trend for the 15 or so years, why are scientists baffled by this? Do they just completely ignore this fact since it doesn’t fit the narrative?

[quote]cwill1973 wrote:

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Antarctic sea ice hits 35 year record high

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/wp/2013/09/23/antarctic-sea-ice-hit-35-year-record-high-saturday/[/quote]

Since there has been a cooling trend for the 15 or so years, why are scientists baffled by this? Do they just completely ignore this fact since it doesn’t fit the narrative?
[/quote]

It’s hard to maintain the narrative when records are broken in a manner than goes against the narrative.

[quote]MaximusB wrote:

[quote]cwill1973 wrote:

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Antarctic sea ice hits 35 year record high

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/wp/2013/09/23/antarctic-sea-ice-hit-35-year-record-high-saturday/[/quote]

Since there has been a cooling trend for the 15 or so years, why are scientists baffled by this? Do they just completely ignore this fact since it doesn’t fit the narrative?
[/quote]

It’s hard to maintain the narrative when records are broken in a manner than goes against the narrative. [/quote]

Anything is possible with the magic tool of statistics.

[quote]cwill1973 wrote:

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Antarctic sea ice hits 35 year record high

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/wp/2013/09/23/antarctic-sea-ice-hit-35-year-record-high-saturday/[/quote]

Since there has been a cooling trend for the 15 or so years, why are scientists baffled by this? Do they just completely ignore this fact since it doesn’t fit the narrative?
[/quote]

I can make it fit the narrative without even trying. You only need the temp to be below freezing to have ice. So, if global temperature increases but the antarctic temp just stays below freezing, you will still have ice forming. Additionally, with warmer temperatures we have more moisture entering the atmosphere. It cycles down to the south pole and we get an expanding polar cap.

I’m not saying I believe this but it seems a plausible explanation if someone needs to come up with one.

The problem is that no one trusts government instinctively, and it doesn’t matter which party is in power.

[quote]on edge wrote:

[quote]cwill1973 wrote:

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Antarctic sea ice hits 35 year record high

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/wp/2013/09/23/antarctic-sea-ice-hit-35-year-record-high-saturday/[/quote]

Since there has been a cooling trend for the 15 or so years, why are scientists baffled by this? Do they just completely ignore this fact since it doesn’t fit the narrative?
[/quote]

I can make it fit the narrative without even trying. You only need the temp to be below freezing to have ice. So, if global temperature increases but the antarctic temp just stays below freezing, you will still have ice forming. Additionally, with warmer temperatures we have more moisture entering the atmosphere. It cycles down to the south pole and we get an expanding polar cap.

I’m not saying I believe this but it seems a plausible explanation if someone needs to come up with one.[/quote]

Sure, sounds plausible but climate zealots have been warning that warming temps would reduce the arctic ice cap. I wish they would make up their mind. Since that didn’t happen, I now have read the wind has caused the increase. There’s always a reason the man-made climate catastrophe doesn’t happen as predicted. You would think they would include these factors before making their dire predictions.

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Antarctic sea ice hits 35 year record high

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/wp/2013/09/23/antarctic-sea-ice-hit-35-year-record-high-saturday/[/quote]

Yes, artic SEA ice has…

There is difference between arctic sea ice, and arctic land ice. The latter of which may cause sea levels to rise.

“Skeptic arguments that Antarctica is gaining ice frequently hinge on an error of omission, namely ignoring the difference between land ice and sea ice.”

“One must also be careful how you interpret trends in Antarctic sea ice. Currently this ice is increasing overall and has been for years but is this the smoking gun against climate change? Not quite…”

IF one would like to read the source:

[quote]colt44 wrote:

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Antarctic sea ice hits 35 year record high

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/wp/2013/09/23/antarctic-sea-ice-hit-35-year-record-high-saturday/[/quote]

Yes, artic SEA ice has…

There is difference between arctic sea ice, and arctic land ice. The latter of which may cause sea levels to rise.

“Skeptic arguments that Antarctica is gaining ice frequently hinge on an error of omission, namely ignoring the difference between land ice and sea ice.”

“One must also be careful how you interpret trends in Antarctic sea ice. Currently this ice is increasing overall and has been for years but is this the smoking gun against climate change? Not quite…”

IF one would like to read the source:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/antarctica-gaining-ice-basic.htm[/quote]

I’ve already exposed skeptical science as a group of semi-literate, unqualified, self described “amateurs” and “hobbyists.” You might want to read the “about the team” page:

They’re also radical activists and don’t even pretend to be disinterested.