Well, they are "ice"bergs. If global warming were true they would be "water"bergs.

Dude, I'm kind of chilly right now so you're full of shiat.

No need to panic. Obama has ordered the ice shelf loosened by our satellite borne lasers to shake loose some icebergs to send into the New Zealand shipping lanes to demonstrate to the Chinese that what we are capable of. This is nothing more than a bit of saber rattling for the benefit of the Chinese who recently tried to brow-beat us about discussing their espionage attempts. And so it goes.

AGW has been a long term weapon against the Chinese for years, our goal is to retard their growth somewhat and keep it from spinning out of control in a way that could lead to their dominating everything.

So just chill out, Obama has got it all under control now. Nothing to fear.

FTFA: An Australian Antarctic Division glaciologist said the ice chunks, spotted by satellite photography, had passed the Auckland Islands and were heading towards the main South Island, about 450 kilometres (280 miles) northeast.

He said large numbers of icebergs had not floated this close to New Zealand since 2006, when a number came within 25 kilometres of the coastline -- the first such sighting since 1931.

I wasnt aware that commercial satellites capable of photography and a global instant communications system existed the entire 20th century. But gosh, lets make up information that we've been able to monitor and report this type of thing with the same accuracy since 1900.

Or maybe we constructed the evidence from tree ring sampling too?

Bad science is bad.

Wgy only look back on the prior century? Your focus on tiny time horizons is skewing the data, subby

Just apply Mike's Nature Trick to get whatever results you need!

/It's over. You're not getting the money, we're not buying the hype. Go look for another scam, this one is played out.

And for what its worth - I dont deny that global warming is happening at all.

However, I am sick and tired of skewed observations, data "treatments" and over-hyped stories selling this.

Science is not emotional. If people dont value the facts presented you dont get to put on your boogyman suit and chase them around.

me texan: I wasnt aware that commercial satellites capable of photography and a global instant communications system existed the entire 20th century. But gosh, lets make up information that we've been able to monitor and report this type of thing with the same accuracy since 1900.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that while they didn't have satellites, they did have shipping lanes. And maybe people on those ships concerned with the presence of icebergs.

Barbigazi: I'm going to go out on a limb and say that while they didn't have satellites, they did have shipping lanes. And maybe people on those ships concerned with the presence of icebergs.

I have very little doubt that commercial shipping existed. I dont think its unreasonable to say that the information was communicated as completely and as efficiently as we do today.. and even today we arent completely sure or we'd not be making ships able to withstand scrapes with icebergs.. we'd just navigate them around icebergs.

The titanic happened because of shiatty communications and record keeping and you want me to believe we've documented everything perfectly and that we've not missed anything?

I'm not buying it. You cant compare the two and speak with the absolute certainty this headline does... but it will be repeated as "fact" in spite of not being scientifically factual. There should be a large "we dont know for sure" in the message here but I see no caveats.

me texan: I dont think its unreasonable to say that the information was not communicated as completely and as efficiently as we do today..

FTFM

me texan: Barbigazi: I'm going to go out on a limb and say that while they didn't have satellites, they did have shipping lanes. And maybe people on those ships concerned with the presence of icebergs.

I have very little doubt that commercial shipping existed. I dont think its unreasonable to say that the information was communicated as completely and as efficiently as we do today.. and even today we arent completely sure or we'd not be making ships able to withstand scrapes with icebergs.. we'd just navigate them around icebergs.

The titanic happened because of shiatty communications and record keeping and you want me to believe we've documented everything perfectly and that we've not missed anything?

I'm not buying it. You cant compare the two and speak with the absolute certainty this headline does... but it will be repeated as "fact" in spite of not being scientifically factual. There should be a large "we dont know for sure" in the message here but I see no caveats.

It sounds like you are saying that because they can't predict where icebergs are now, they don't keep track of where they were. Icebergs disrupting shipping lanes is kind of a big deal, people keep track of those things.

I hope they will be keeping the sheep off the icebergs this time.

If it's not a myth then why are scientists apparently conspiring to cover up Global Cooling? (new window)

Is this the thread where people who believe ACORN stole the election clue us all in to the most extensive scientific conspiracy in history?

Farkeologist: If it's not a myth then why are scientists apparently conspiring to cover up Global Cooling? (new window)

What I want to know is, how'd they fake the icebergs?

Barbigazi: It sounds like you are saying that because they can't predict where icebergs are now, they don't keep track of where they were.

You dont have to predict what you know. If you dont know something you need to predict it. So which is it? Do we know or predict? Have we always known since 1900 where every iceberg in the ocean was?

Barbigazi: Icebergs disrupting shipping lanes is kind of a big deal, people keep track of those things.

Thats what the passengers who died on the Titanic thought too.. but the lack of standards for tracking, reporting and acting on this type of information failed them.

If it wasnt important enough to the crew of one of the most publicly acknowledged ships of that time then why would it be important enough for a bunch of sailors down in the lower southern hemisphere in an area less traveled?

Cagey B: Is this the thread where people who believe ACORN stole the election clue us all in to the most extensive scientific conspiracy in history?

No, this is the thread where people make ad-hominem attacks on people that would like to have facts and reliable data before we predict the end of the world.

While that's a very compelling and frightening real world example, I had to wear a jacket today so I'm not sure.

me texan: Barbigazi: It sounds like you are saying that because they can't predict where icebergs are now, they don't keep track of where they were.

You dont have to predict what you know. If you dont know something you need to predict it. So which is it? Do we know or predict? Have we always known since 1900 where every iceberg in the ocean was?

Barbigazi: Icebergs disrupting shipping lanes is kind of a big deal, people keep track of those things.

Thats what the passengers who died on the Titanic thought too.. but the lack of standards for tracking, reporting and acting on this type of information failed them.

If it wasnt important enough to the crew of one of the most publicly acknowledged ships of that time then why would it be important enough for a bunch of sailors down in the lower southern hemisphere in an area less traveled?

So, you are actually arguing not against GW or AGW, but against record keeping itself.

Have we always known since 1900 where every iceberg in the ocean was?

Why would anyone need to claim that? What I am saying is that when the icebergs become such a problem that they disrupt shipping lanes, that is the kind of thing that people record. You are saying that they wouldn't because of the Titanic. Yet, we sure as hell all know there was an iceberg in that shipping lane. It is recorded fact.

You might be arguing with the headline as though they are ever based in fact. The fact is that twice in the last five years icebergs have disrupted shipping lanes around New Zealand an event that only happened once in the previous century.

me texan: No, this is the thread where people make ad-hominem attacks on people that would like to have facts and reliable data before we predict the end of the world.

I'm not sure anyone who thinks that the Titanic sinking somehow disproves the entire notion of maritime record keeping in the 20th century should be talking about "facts and reliable data".

me texan: And for what its worth - I dont deny that global warming is happening at all.

However, I am sick and tired of skewed observations, data "treatments" and over-hyped stories selling this.

Science is not emotional. If people dont value the facts presented you dont get to put on your boogyman suit and chase them around.

Science shouldn't be emotional. Scientists, on the other hand, are excitable little buggers. You've got to watch them all the time.

Barbigazi: Yet, we sure as hell all know there was an iceberg in that shipping lane. It is recorded fact.

And these records were reported by ships crews and yet we have a ships crew that ignored the report "but as Jack Phillips and Harold Bride, the Marconi wireless radio operators, were employed by Marconi [32] and paid to relay messages to and from the passengers,[33] they were not focused on relaying such "non-essential" ice messages to the bridge." (new window)

So we've demonstrated that the crew of ships had license to interpret what was important vs not important and I'm now supposed to believe that a system that relied upon individual discretion and chance of contact is as accurate as the technology we have today and covers the same territory as completely?

Sorry, I'm not buying it. Again - this is where we take partial data with unreliable standards and hold it up to be factual? That's not science.

This article and headline says "we know" when it should be "we think". That's what I'm arguing here - and this story will propagate as fact.

Cagey B: I'm not sure anyone who thinks that the Titanic sinking somehow disproves the entire notion of maritime record keeping in the 20th century should be talking about "facts and reliable data".

Have I said that? No I havent. You're trying to paint me with a wider brush than what I've said here on purpose to obfuscate my point.

I'm saying the records from the 20th century are not as accurate because they relied solely upon the CHANCE of contact and the compliance of reporting AND the compliance of record keeping of those who were reported to.

You cant compare the two with the absolute certainty that this article and headline does.. and yet here is now another "fact" to support global warming.

Pfffttt!! What do you know?....MISTER SCIENTIST!!!

Barbigazi: Farkeologist: If it's not a myth then why are scientists apparently conspiring to cover up Global Cooling? (new window)

What I want to know is, how'd they fake the icebergs?

Same way they faked the moon landing. Haven't you seen Titanic?

me texan: So we've demonstrated that the crew of ships had license to interpret what was important vs not important and I'm now supposed to believe that a system that relied upon individual discretion and chance of contact is as accurate as the technology we have today and covers the same territory as completely?

No, we haven't. You are arguing that in 1931 the last time icebergs disrupted the shipping lanes around New Zealand they just on a whim decided to record it just that once.

The crew of the Titanic chose to ignore warnings of an iceberg and died. Just because 2 guys who were warned to steer clear of the icebergs chose not to heed that warning you are denying the record keeping ability of an entire nation.

Has anyone ever considered the impact of an iceberg making it to landfall? I mean everyone was so concerned about hitting icebergs in the open seas.

Just saying that it might be a reason why New Zealand and Australia would keep track of icebergs now if there are more moving about in the ocean.

Barbigazi: You are arguing that in 1931 the last time icebergs disrupted the shipping lanes around New Zealand they just on a whim decided to record it just that once.

Why do you keep telling me what I'm arguing? Why dont you ask me if you dont understand? I'm not denying the records that exist. I'm denying the fact that everything was recorded and reported and to support that, I've shown evidence that the standards for reporting and relaying ice were crew-discretionary at best.

I'm also saying that shipping lanes coverage DOES NOT EQUAL the coverage of satellites we have today.

How hard is this to understand? You cannot compare the two records with certainty.

Look: here's a map of shipping lanes. Notice all that blue area around New Zealand? It means ships dont go there. Notice the lighter orange lines? It means ships dont go there as often.

http://people.hofstra.edu/geotrans/eng/ch5en/conc5en/maritimeroutes.html


Today we have satellites that cover this area with more accuracy and consistence.. and you're asking me to take a leap of faith that a marginal record keeping system without 100% coverage is somehow as accurate?

Again.. I'm not buying it.

But ice is good. It will cool the water around New Zealand so that the weather there will be perfect to film The Hobbit.

me texan: Barbigazi: You are arguing that in 1931 the last time icebergs disrupted the shipping lanes around New Zealand they just on a whim decided to record it just that once.

Why do you keep telling me what I'm arguing? Why dont you ask me if you dont understand? I'm not denying the records that exist. I'm denying the fact that everything was recorded and reported and to support that, I've shown evidence that the standards for reporting and relaying ice were crew-discretionary at best.

I'm also saying that shipping lanes coverage DOES NOT EQUAL the coverage of satellites we have today.

How hard is this to understand? You cannot compare the two records with certainty.

Look: here's a map of shipping lanes. Notice all that blue area around New Zealand? It means ships dont go there. Notice the lighter orange lines? It means ships dont go there as often.

http://people.hofstra.edu/geotrans/eng/ch5en/conc5en/maritimeroutes.html


Today we have satellites that cover this area with more accuracy and consistence.. and you're asking me to take a leap of faith that a marginal record keeping system without 100% coverage is somehow as accurate?

Again.. I'm not buying it.

THIS IS A F*CKING ARTICLE ABOUT A COPIOUS AMOUNT OF F*CKING ICEBERGS IN THE F*CKING SHIPPING LANES!!

What the f*ck are you not understanding about that? I'm trying to be as clear and polite as possible, but you're being a retard.

What is it that you aren't "buying"? That there are icebergs in the shipping lanes? That it's happening in quantities that haven't been seen since 1931, yet its happened twice in the last five years? Is that what you don't agree with?

The scientist in the article is pointing at these observable facts and saying "this is caused by global warming" you are saying the facts aren't observable. Which is retarded.

I_C_Weener: But ice is good. It will cool the water around New Zealand so that the weather there will be perfect to film The Hobbit.

All the more reason to institute tighter controls over Smaug.

Don't panic everyone. That was just me ordering enough ice for my Christmas coctail party.

An event that happened twice in the last century (Vietnam and Korea) has happened twice already in this century (Iraq and Afghanistan). This can only mean that this century will have 20 pre-emptive wars started by the United States!!!!

I_C_Weener: An event that happened twice in the last century (Vietnam and Korea) has happened twice already in this century (Iraq and Afghanistan). This can only mean that this century will have 20 pre-emptive wars started by the United States!!!!

War does not work that way.

I_C_Weener: An event that happened twice in the last century (Vietnam and Korea) has happened twice already in this century (Iraq and Afghanistan). This can only mean that this century will have 20 pre-emptive wars started by the United States!!!!

This would be more likely if McCain/Palin won the election.

Barbigazi: THIS IS A F*CKING ARTICLE ABOUT A COPIOUS AMOUNT OF F*CKING ICEBERGS IN THE F*CKING SHIPPING LANES!!

What the f*ck are you not understanding about that? I'm trying to be as clear and polite as possible, but you're being a retard.

What is it that you aren't "buying"? That there are icebergs in the shipping lanes? That it's happening in quantities that haven't been seen since 1931, yet its happened twice in the last five years? Is that what you don't agree with?

The scientist in the article is pointing at these observable facts and saying "this is caused by global warming" you are saying the facts aren't observable. Which is retarded.

Okay, let's take a deep breath and try to calm down. I think I understand me texan's argument. Let's see if a little re-wording will allow it to penetrate the perma-frost layer surrounding your brain.

The problem is in the headline. The idea is presented in such a way as to imply that we have been keeping hyper-accurate records of icebergs and their paths for over a century. mt doubts that very much, and I would agree. The tracking of icebergs, where they were, the paths they took, have only been available in the last few decades thanks not only to technology but the deployment of that technology to observe these things.

His argument that iceberg migration patterns were not as well tracked in the early part of the twentieth century as they are now is, to my mind, true. If you would like to continue this argument, i.e. saying satellite imagery has been available and in use for tracing icebergs since around 1900 CE, please attempt to refrain from descending into name calling as you present your rather twisted view of science and its achievements.

jwa007: The problem is in the headline. The idea is presented in such a way as to imply that we have been keeping hyper-accurate records of icebergs and their paths for over a century. mt doubts that very much, and I would agree. The tracking of icebergs, where they were, the paths they took, have only been available in the last few decades thanks not only to technology but the deployment of that technology to observe these things.

We don't need to know the paths the icebergs took, only the paths they obstructed, shipping lanes.

Barbigazi: We don't need to know the paths the icebergs took, only the paths they obstructed, shipping lanes.

That's it? After all that hyperbole and calling me texan a retard and the all caps stuff, that is all you got?

Okay, so icebergs are in New Zealand's shipping lanes. Who do you want to arrest? The bergs? Nature? New Zealand?

jwa007: Barbigazi: We don't need to know the paths the icebergs took, only the paths they obstructed, shipping lanes.

That's it? After all that hyperbole and calling me texan a retard and the all caps stuff, that is all you got?

Okay, so icebergs are in New Zealand's shipping lanes. Who do you want to arrest? The bergs? Nature? New Zealand?

If you had read my previous conversation with Me Texan you would see that he is arguing that because of the Titanic we can't know if icebergs have been swarming the New Zealand shipping lanes every year for the last hundred years.

We haven't even touched on any kind of scientific argument. He has been arguing against New Zealands ability to correctly record when icebergs have disrupted their shipping lanes.

Barbigazi: We don't need to know the paths the icebergs took, only the paths they obstructed, shipping lanes.

so maybe this phenomenon happens all the time, but doesn't interfere with shipping lanes...

real shaman: Barbigazi: We don't need to know the paths the icebergs took, only the paths they obstructed, shipping lanes.

so maybe this phenomenon happens all the time, but doesn't interfere with shipping lanes...

The phenomenon of icebergs disrupting shipping lanes happens all the time, but we don't notice because it doesn't disrupt shipping lanes?

Or, miraculously icebergs are breaking off Antarctica all the time but courteously avoid the shipping lanes?

Il Douchey: Just apply Mike's Nature Trick to get whatever results you need!

/It's over. You're not getting the money, we're not buying the hype. Go look for another scam, this one is played out.

Dun dun dun!

This.

DeCypher44: Il Douchey: Just apply Mike's Nature Trick to get whatever results you need!

/It's over. You're not getting the money, we're not buying the hype. Go look for another scam, this one is played out.

Dun dun dun!

This.


You see, I said that about bottled water too. I even pointed out that Evian is naive spelled backwards. And yet, people still buy tap water in a plastic bottle.

The climate change boondoggle will be around at least as long.

Barbigazi: The phenomenon of icebergs disrupting shipping lanes happens all the time, but we don't notice because it doesn't disrupt shipping lanes?

Or, miraculously icebergs are breaking off Antarctica all the time but courteously avoid the shipping lanes?

What, exactly, is it you are driving at? We know icebergs are in the shipping lanes of New Zealand. Eddies in the Space Time Continuum also. What are you trying to prove here? You freaked out at someone who observed that in the early part of the twentieth century we were not capable of accurately tracking iceberg migration patterns as we are today. To what end have you engaged in these literary histrionics Barbigazi. The headline tells us the icebergs are in the shipping lanes. And?

jwa007: Barbigazi: The phenomenon of icebergs disrupting shipping lanes happens all the time, but we don't notice because it doesn't disrupt shipping lanes?

Or, miraculously icebergs are breaking off Antarctica all the time but courteously avoid the shipping lanes?

What, exactly, is it you are driving at? We know icebergs are in the shipping lanes of New Zealand. Eddies in the Space Time Continuum also. What are you trying to prove here? You freaked out at someone who observed that in the early part of the twentieth century we were not capable of accurately tracking iceberg migration patterns as we are today. To what end have you engaged in these literary histrionics Barbigazi. The headline tells us the icebergs are in the shipping lanes. And?

read the thread.

Barbigazi: read the thread.

You read it...it is full of your bleating and all caps and calling folks retards because they don't agree with your warped and twisted perspective on reality. Is that what this is about. You just want us to agree that the icebergs are in the shipping lanes? Is that all?

Okay, Barbigazi, I concede that icebergs have broken off from the Antarctic shelf and are flowing into the shipping lanes of New Zealand.

Satisfied?

jwa007: Barbigazi: read the thread.

You read it...it is full of your bleating and all caps and calling folks retards because they don't agree with your warped and twisted perspective on reality. Is that what this is about. You just want us to agree that the icebergs are in the shipping lanes? Is that all?

Okay, Barbigazi, I concede that icebergs have broken off from the Antarctic shelf and are flowing into the shipping lanes of New Zealand.

Satisfied?

I used caps once. Go back, and read the thread.

All of the believers in ManBearPig are getting all butt-hurt now that the REAL inconvenient truth is coming out.



/MANBEARPIG!

It's like Frogger but with ships instead.

And we know this because in the 1800s we had a system of satellites watching the Earth? Like; the NASA EOS system was launched by President Monroe?

Bullshiat for the stupid.

myth??? subtard needs to catch up on the news: the word you are looking for is "fraud".