Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Sydney Morning Herald)   Latest attempt to rescue global warming research ship abandoned due to thick wedges of consolidated irony   (smh.com.au ) divider line
    More: Followup  
•       •       •

2950 clicks; posted to Main » on 30 Dec 2013 at 9:59 AM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



202 Comments   (+0 »)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-12-30 12:26:18 PM  

trappedspirit: ikanreed: trappedspirit: ikanreed: trappedspirit: dookdookdook: OMG THERE'S ICE AT THE NORTH FARKING POLE GLOBAL WARMING IS A CONSPIRACY

ikanreed: Hey, guys, there's no global warming.  There's ice, at the north pole, in winter.  Even though there's less than any year in history besides last year or the year before, it's still totally evidence.


[democrat-independent-republican-belief-in-global-warming.jpg]

WTF?  Did you feel such a need to blurt out your bullshiat that you got your poles and seasons wrong?  Makes one wonder what else in your thinking is 180 degrees off.

Oh, look, I already addressed that very point in this thread.  But sure, you can jump on me without reading anything else I posted for the high crime of not reading an article the headline leads me to believe is link-bait.

Why would I want to read anything else by someone whose post leads me to believe they are reactionary and emotional about the subject at hand?

Yeah, that's me.  Tired of the same 10-12 points from deniers forever=reactionary.  Go away.

So you can assume things based on the headline but if I assume things base on a post a read of yours I get this attitude?  You sound like a miserable person.


Well, I'd appreciate some leeway once I pointed it out, but ok.  Sure.
 
2013-12-30 12:28:52 PM  

ikanreed: Tricky Chicken:
Wow, you are all over the place.  Are you asserting that acknowledging that in the 70s there were stories abour global cooling automatically makes you a denier?

Just replying to this one sentence, since it's been an important part of what I've been saying, but yes.  It absolutely 100% does.  It's in the nature of denialism to latch onto one point you personally don't like, and repeat it forever.  Not every denier generates all of the same points, because all of them are personally hung up on some arbitrary point.  It's human psychology, and it's why we get these stupid, non-ending debates, and you should stop doing it.


Wow, please re-read your own post over and over until you understand it.

CeroX:

Please tell me you at least understand the above post.  This is the type of lunacy I was railing against. Simply acknowledging the articles exist makes you a denier.  This level of rank stupidity is all the deniers need to justify their position.
 
2013-12-30 12:31:30 PM  

Tricky Chicken: Wow, please re-read your own post over and over until you understand it.


O...kay...  I have critically applied the concept both to itself, and the underlying point that you shouldn't be hung up on what was reported by some unspecified number of journalists 40 years ago.  I cannot figure out what I'm missing, so please stop assuming I'm aware of whatever hypocrisy you see.
 
2013-12-30 12:32:55 PM  

ikanreed: Tricky Chicken: Wow, please re-read your own post over and over until you understand it.

O...kay...  I have critically applied the concept both to itself, and the underlying point that you shouldn't be hung up on what was reported by some unspecified number of journalists 40 years ago.  I cannot figure out what I'm missing, so please stop assuming I'm aware of whatever hypocrisy you see.


Oh, it is clear that you are unaware.
 
2013-12-30 12:35:12 PM  

Tricky Chicken: ikanreed: Tricky Chicken: Wow, please re-read your own post over and over until you understand it.

O...kay...  I have critically applied the concept both to itself, and the underlying point that you shouldn't be hung up on what was reported by some unspecified number of journalists 40 years ago.  I cannot figure out what I'm missing, so please stop assuming I'm aware of whatever hypocrisy you see.

Oh, it is clear that you are unaware.


Nope, you don't get to do that.  You don't get to be a dense motherfarker, have it pointed out to you, say "you too" and then act smug without justifying it.

Since you're not going to do that...  Let's go back to my point.

Are you going to stop repeating the nonsense about articles in the 70s, so we have one less idiot dragging down the debate in all these threads? If no, why not, elaborate, if you can?
 
2013-12-30 12:43:16 PM  

ikanreed: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: ikanreed: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Ignoring the name calling, you seem rather preoccupied with putting people into the neat little categorical containers that the media has prepared for you. Subjects like global climate change and evolution are generally not served well by black and white thinking. That arrests the discussion instead of furthering it. Just sayin

What?

No, seriously, what?

I can't even begin to guess what point you're making.

Ha, ironically, that kinda is my point.

No, no it isn't.  You're point would be that I'm putting things into containers, I get that much, what I don't get is why your interpretation is that.  Also, I'm already engaged in at least one meta-discussion that's driving me batty, so if you have a criticism about the nature of my posts that can lead to better posting on my part, I'd appreciate a more specific, and less, for lack of a better word, typifying description of it that I might reflect on it and move on.


Just don't be so reactionary or defensive. To some of us, how the course of the global climate discussion has changed over the last 40 years is interesting. It doesn't make us idiots, "deniers", or anything else.
 
2013-12-30 12:46:10 PM  

Farking Canuck: This is ironic ... for stupid people ... who don't understand the difference between weather and climate ... and that is is cold in the antarctic (even with global warming).


Well, that depends on what the meaning of "is is" is.

In other news, for even stupider people, the word "it" and the word "is" have different meanings.

But please, by all means, talk about stupid people, and then go on to demonstrate that you can't even construct a coherent sentence.
 
2013-12-30 12:47:18 PM  

sufferpuppet: How much stock should we put in the science!!! done by people who were outsmarted by ice?


About as much as a vulcanologist who gets killed by a volcanic bomb. shiat happens. It's funny, but it doesn't mean anything.

That said, the leader of the field trip said the temperature outside rose to above freezing, and he thought he saw a few cracks in front of the boat, so things were maybe changing.  The very next update came in the way of much colder weather and blizzard like conditions, and cracks in 12 foot thick ice don't mean jack diddly.  In other words, the dude is trying to drink his own PR Kool-Aid.
 
2013-12-30 12:48:08 PM  
Did anyone point out that this article is from the future?
 
2013-12-30 12:50:17 PM  

SVenus: sufferpuppet: How much stock should we put in the science!!! done by people who were outsmarted by ice?

About as much as a vulcanologist who gets killed by a volcanic bomb. shiat happens. It's funny, but it doesn't mean anything.

That said, the leader of the field trip said the temperature outside rose to above freezing, and he thought he saw a few cracks in front of the boat, so things were maybe changing.  The very next update came in the way of much colder weather and blizzard like conditions, and cracks in 12 foot thick ice don't mean jack diddly.  In other words, the dude is trying to drink his own PR Kool-Aid.


There isn't a climate scientist on the planet who thinks that the polar regions are ever going to be "warm."

At best, you are intellectually dishonest. At worst, you're a knowing liar.
 
2013-12-30 12:50:22 PM  
Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom:
Just don't be so reactionary or defensive. To some of us, how the course of the global climate discussion has changed over the last 40 years is interesting. It doesn't make us idiots, "deniers", or anything else.

Bringing up the same irrelevant points does, though.  "The debate" is the problem.  I gotta be careful to not sideline into arguing against something you're not saying here, but discussing these points is like discussing "Piltdown man" in evolutionary science.  The confines of where it's relevant almost never match when people bring it up.
 
2013-12-30 12:51:04 PM  

Tricky Chicken: Please tell me you at least understand the above post. This is the type of lunacy I was railing against. Simply acknowledging the articles exist makes you a denier. This level of rank stupidity is all the deniers need to justify their position.


At this point, it's mute. You've strung him along to the point of it being an epic troll even if it wasn't intentional, and he's so angry he's seeing red... Both of you need to address the elephant in the room, which i believe i have done so earlier, but hey, whatever, it's something you both need to do.

You need to fess up and say yeah, they existed and they were all horseshiat scare tactics, and ikanreed needs to do the same... for those in the 70's that reported on an ice age it was never about science, it was about fear selling more copies to the audience... period. Those same people who published scare articles about the coming ice age also beat it into our heads that there were maniacs in every house slipping razor blades into kids candy bars during halloween. It wasn't true then, it isn't true now...
 
2013-12-30 12:56:07 PM  

CeroX: Tricky Chicken: Please tell me you at least understand the above post. This is the type of lunacy I was railing against. Simply acknowledging the articles exist makes you a denier. This level of rank stupidity is all the deniers need to justify their position.

At this point, it's mute. You've strung him along to the point of it being an epic troll even if it wasn't intentional, and he's so angry he's seeing red... Both of you need to address the elephant in the room, which i believe i have done so earlier, but hey, whatever, it's something you both need to do.

You need to fess up and say yeah, they existed and they were all horseshiat scare tactics, and ikanreed needs to do the same... for those in the 70's that reported on an ice age it was never about science, it was about fear selling more copies to the audience... period. Those same people who published scare articles about the coming ice age also beat it into our heads that there were maniacs in every house slipping razor blades into kids candy bars during halloween. It wasn't true then, it isn't true now...


...

...

Control-f "ikanreed"

hey look, I already did that because, hey, I didn't care about being wrong.  Didn't help.  So... take you're helpful "mediation" and shove it.
 
2013-12-30 12:56:50 PM  

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: ikanreed: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: ikanreed: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Ignoring the name calling, you seem rather preoccupied with putting people into the neat little categorical containers that the media has prepared for you. Subjects like global climate change and evolution are generally not served well by black and white thinking. That arrests the discussion instead of furthering it. Just sayin

What?

No, seriously, what?

I can't even begin to guess what point you're making.

Ha, ironically, that kinda is my point.

No, no it isn't.  You're point would be that I'm putting things into containers, I get that much, what I don't get is why your interpretation is that.  Also, I'm already engaged in at least one meta-discussion that's driving me batty, so if you have a criticism about the nature of my posts that can lead to better posting on my part, I'd appreciate a more specific, and less, for lack of a better word, typifying description of it that I might reflect on it and move on.

Just don't be so reactionary or defensive. To some of us, how the course of the global climate discussion has changed over the last 40 years is interesting. It doesn't make us idiots, "deniers", or anything else.


no, they made it clear.  Just the fact that you are aware of things that were said in the 70s makes you automatically a denier.  And through inference, you are likely a creationist and a flat-earth adherent. You are supposed to vehemently deny that you ever heard any of this stuff. Also, we have always been at war with east-asia.
 
2013-12-30 12:59:15 PM  

Dirtybird971: Did anyone point out that this article is from the future?


DAMN YOU FARTBONGO!!!!
 
2013-12-30 01:01:06 PM  
These explanations are all over the map, like the blind men describing the elephant. [Aesop]

Apparently none of these people [and you] have ever been through an ice age.
It works like this:

warming [just a little] increases water content in atmosphere a little bit, which after a while saturates the entire atmosphere with a little more water content than usual.

 the seasons occur as usual, snowfall at the poles tends to be a little heavier [moisture content] creating ice a little thicker and a little faster.
meanwhile, a little warmer where the planet is usually warm, means a little more water is continually added to the atmosphere.

all the little bits add up....
eventually the reaction feeds it self into an acceleration phase so that the onset of an ice age is a 2 year affair after the initial build up.

 earth is about 50% into the build up phase, which self accelerates in a logarithmic fashion.
 the extremes of heat and cold will increase, along with violence in weather systems.

toward the very end of the build up 100-500' snowfall seasons will occur, along with record heatwaves in other places, temps of 150 deg over wide areas of sub tropical and tropical zones leading to spontaneous combustion of organic material.

The released pollutants will cool the earth, and meanwhile those 500' snowfall seasons have become 1-2000 ft seasons , which means the snow never melts, all the way down to N. Texas & etc. the heatwaves will pack that into durable ice...

then will come the year where there is no summer, winter begins in fall, and after that -0-0-0-0-0

Read the beginning of the Sagas [Scandinavian] for a clearer understanding of the the 2 year precipice.

[nomadcat.jpg]
 
2013-12-30 01:04:50 PM  

Egoy3k: If the planet was so warm that there was no ice at the south pole we wouldn't be discussing global warming on the internet, we'd most likely be dead.


I will be living the sweet life on an atoll, selling dirt for pure hydro
 
2013-12-30 01:05:27 PM  

ikanreed: Tricky Chicken: ikanreed: Tricky Chicken: Wow, please re-read your own post over and over until you understand it.

O...kay...  I have critically applied the concept both to itself, and the underlying point that you shouldn't be hung up on what was reported by some unspecified number of journalists 40 years ago.  I cannot figure out what I'm missing, so please stop assuming I'm aware of whatever hypocrisy you see.

Oh, it is clear that you are unaware.

Nope, you don't get to do that.  You don't get to be a dense motherfarker, have it pointed out to you, say "you too" and then act smug without justifying it.

Since you're not going to do that...  Let's go back to my point.

Are you going to stop repeating the nonsense about articles in the 70s, so we have one less idiot dragging down the debate in all these threads? If no, why not, elaborate, if you can?


No, I will not deny that there was a time in the 70s where there was reporting of a potentially looming global cooling cycle. But like I previously mentioned, I will point out that at that time, the understanding of the climate was not the same as it is now.  And while some at the time predicted a pending cooling period, almost nobody is making that prediction at this time. I will not ever go on a moronic tirade insisting that everyone that has even read the articles is a denier, because I know just how definitively stupid that position is.
 
2013-12-30 01:05:28 PM  

sufferpuppet: How much stock should we put in the science!!! done by people who were outsmarted by ice?


You Win!!!

And thank you, good sir.
 
2013-12-30 01:06:29 PM  

LavenderWolf: There isn't a climate scientist on the planet who thinks that the polar regions are ever going to be "warm."

At best, you are intellectually dishonest. At worst, you're a knowing liar.


A qualified Ad-Hom.  You're slipping.
 
2013-12-30 01:13:52 PM  
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/uk-weather-christmas-storms-warn i ng-2971659

Like this, more and more often....

Conveniently erasing [grinding to powder, under ice] the evil industrial behemoth that sits upon the earth like a bacterial mat.
 Isn't it cool that its location is almost exactly where the glacial sheets like to cavort?

Revenge served;
Cold
 
2013-12-30 01:16:17 PM  

Tricky Chicken: AL GORE


*chug*
 
2013-12-30 01:22:36 PM  

SevenizGud: Farking Canuck: This is ironic ... for stupid people ... who don't understand the difference between weather and climate ... and that is is cold in the antarctic (even with global warming).

Well, that depends on what the meaning of "is is" is.

In other news, for even stupider people, the word "it" and the word "is" have different meanings.

But please, by all means, talk about stupid people, and then go on to demonstrate that you can't even construct a coherent sentence.


Seriously.

The man who posts the same idiotic cherry picked graph in every thread is going to go after me because of an obvious typo?

I really didn't think you could get dumber. I guess I was wrong.
 
2013-12-30 01:30:42 PM  

Farking Canuck: There was a time magazine cover in the 70's about cooling


Actually, no. The Time magazine cover with the penguin on it is a photoshop. This is the actual cover it was taken from:

img.timeinc.net


Article from Time about the often used fake cover

The other cover often posted about "the cooling of America" was actually about fuel prices.
 
2013-12-30 01:31:01 PM  

Animatronik: The problem with this particular field is that it relies so heavily on computer modeling that even experienced scientists scratch their heads when asked if the models are correct and predictions accurate.

The biggest problem with all the pessimistic predictions is that aren't going to stop China and India, if anything they'll be encouraged to use even more energy by our continued efforts to cripple our industries .


There is an old expression in science: "All models are wrong. Some are useful." I don't expect you to understand it.

I see you decided to pull out the old "Economy destroying measures" talking point. This is the strawman deniers pull out when they can't argue the science. It seems to boil down to "I don't like the proposed solution to the problem so let's pretend the problem doesn't exist!"

You do realize that not liking a proposed solution is not an argument against the science? Right? That you can say "Yes the evidence clearly shows AGW is happening but I do not agree with proposed solution X".

Personally I don't give a rat's ass about what solution, if any, the politicians put in place. I am just tired of mouth-breathers saying that the scientists are wrong and uneducated bloggers are right.
 
2013-12-30 01:33:07 PM  

Thrag: Farking Canuck: There was a time magazine cover in the 70's about cooling

Actually, no. The Time magazine cover with the penguin on it is a photoshop.


I knew that there was one photoshop that deniers endlessly pull out ... but I also thought there were a few sensationalist global cooling articles out there as well.
 
2013-12-30 01:37:39 PM  

OnlyM3: Farking Canuck

But you think right-wing bloggers with no education in the field, no research, no data, and a clear political agenda are scientific??
Sorry, I didn't realize NASA was a right wing blog with no education.


The U.S. space agency NASA announced, the sea ice in the Antarctic has extended over an area of 19.47 million square meters at the end of September. That is the highest since measurements began in 1979.


NASA also says an increase in Antarctic ice does not disprove climate change.
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/arctic-antarctic-ice.html
 
2013-12-30 01:38:07 PM  

Farking Canuck: Thrag: Farking Canuck: There was a time magazine cover in the 70's about cooling

Actually, no. The Time magazine cover with the penguin on it is a photoshop.

I knew that there was one photoshop that deniers endlessly pull out ... but I also thought there were a few sensationalist global cooling articles out there as well.


I think there was one major scientific model/basis for the articles in the 70's.  All came from one source though there were several articles over several years.  Most of the hysteria was due to the late 70's bad winters and ergo, some scientist saying global cooling makes for some nice background for a media hsyteria article on snow.

But, there have been some recent scientific studies/models predicting global cooling.  Russians a couple years ago, Germans this summer, and a former AGW guy just recently said that he sees global cooling occurring...can't think of his name but it was part of a Fark article in the last 2 weeks. So, it is interesting that in the recent past there is some actual science behind the global cooling "school" of thought.  Of course, some of that "school" is basing it on the lack of warming over the past few years rather than on some science as to why.  Though I think the Germans are looking at bigger historical trends.
 
2013-12-30 01:38:20 PM  

SVenus: LavenderWolf: There isn't a climate scientist on the planet who thinks that the polar regions are ever going to be "warm."

At best, you are intellectually dishonest. At worst, you're a knowing liar.

A qualified Ad-Hom.  You're slipping.


No. Do you know what ad-hominem means?

Basically, "you're wrong because (insult)". e.g. "A redheaded step-child like you wouldn't know anything about quantum physics!"

What I said was "You're wrong (for reasons unrelated to any insult), and that implies something insulting."

Not that I was even trying to insult, really, it's just a natural consequence of your statement. You lied. That makes you a liar. You find me one single reputable climate scientist who thinks the Earth is too warm for ice at the poles, or predicting any such result within hundreds of years.

In other words, the dudeSVenus is trying to drink his own PR Kool-Aid.
 
2013-12-30 01:51:57 PM  

I_C_Weener: But, there have been some recent scientific studies/models predicting global cooling. Russians a couple years ago, Germans this summer, and a former AGW guy just recently said that he sees global cooling occurring...can't think of his name but it was part of a Fark article in the last 2 weeks. So, it is interesting that in the recent past there is some actual science behind the global cooling "school" of thought. Of course, some of that "school" is basing it on the lack of warming over the past few years rather than on some science as to why. Though I think the Germans are looking at bigger historical trends.


We should be cooling right now due to where we are in the Milankovitch cycles. But that would be very slow cooling on the scale of thousands of years.

This is one reason that the current trend of very fast warming on the scale of hundreds of years is so concerning to scientists.
 
2013-12-30 01:52:28 PM  

Farking Canuck: Thrag: Farking Canuck: There was a time magazine cover in the 70's about cooling

Actually, no. The Time magazine cover with the penguin on it is a photoshop.

I knew that there was one photoshop that deniers endlessly pull out ... but I also thought there were a few sensationalist global cooling articles out there as well.


There was a time magazine article in 1974 about the possibility of cooling, though it was not the cover story. It is still available online, but sadly all but a short bit of the opening is behind the paywall. Even in that article it mentioned that some scientists believed the cooling trend that was being experienced at that time was only temporary. There was also a Newsweek story about the possibility of cooling in 1975. Those two articles encompass the major media coverage of the event (there was probably other coverage like local new stories latching onto the Time or Newsweek articles, but as far as major publications that was about it).

I missed an opportunity here. I really should have replied to all the people claiming they were around in the 70s and remember the coverage by showing the fake cover and getting them to say "yeah, that's the one!" before posting the real one.
 
2013-12-30 01:55:21 PM  

I_C_Weener: Most of the hysteria was due to the late 70's bad winters and ergo, some scientist saying global cooling makes for some nice background for a media hsyteria article on snow.


There was no hysteria. The idea that there was is pure revisionist history.
 
2013-12-30 01:56:29 PM  

Thrag: I_C_Weener: Most of the hysteria was due to the late 70's bad winters and ergo, some scientist saying global cooling makes for some nice background for a media hsyteria article on snow.

There was no hysteria. The idea that there was is pure revisionist history.


You obviously are in the mood for a fight.  I am not.  Good day.
 
2013-12-30 02:00:35 PM  
How long until the Libs realize there is on Global Warming or Global Cooling and start bleating about "OMG!!! IT'S GLOBAL CLIMATE STAGNATION!!!! IT'S AMERICA'S FAULT!!!!
 
2013-12-30 02:04:01 PM  

LavenderWolf: reputable climate scientist who thinks the Earth is too warm for ice at the poles


You really haven't been following much on the whole situation here, so I'll cut you some slack.
This Turney fellow saw a few cracks in the ice around his stranded ship and figured they'd be able to get out soon.
I related that in this thread.  If you're trying to imply I mentioned something about the Earth is too warm for ice at the poles, feel free to continue to do so, but that certainly misinterprets anything I've mentioned in this thread.

I will certainly imply that Turney and friends must have intended to show how the Antarctic is somehow showing effects of a warmer climate now by comparing the current trip to Antarctica to that of the one taken in 1912, and it was going very well for him until multiyear ice came and surrounded the vessel many many miles from shore.  It was a weather event that merely looks funny.  It's not in fact very funny at all.

Likewise, taking a boat and getting stuck and needing rescue in Northern Canada is also amusing on the surface, but that's not for this thread.

it's a fact that the amount of ice around Antarctica is far above a long term average, almost the same number of standard deviations above the long term average as the Arctic ice is below the long term average.  We have many threads on Arctic ice dissappearing, and very few on Antarctic ice increasing.  One might try to argue that the melting ice is actually causing more sea ice and still try to tack this increasing Antarctic ice on global warming, but the ice around Turney's little cruise is very thick multi year sea ice and very few iceburgs are blocking their way to the open ocean.  The argument is a possible one, but it's very much up for debate.

The helicopter(s) are on the way to rescue the vacationers as I type this.  Strangely, Turney and friends will consider this whole adventure a net positive for their cause, because of the worldwide attention to this debacle.
 
2013-12-30 02:04:25 PM  

I_C_Weener: Thrag: I_C_Weener: Most of the hysteria was due to the late 70's bad winters and ergo, some scientist saying global cooling makes for some nice background for a media hsyteria article on snow.

There was no hysteria. The idea that there was is pure revisionist history.

You obviously are in the mood for a fight.  I am not.  Good day.


I'm not in the mood for a fight. I'm in the mood for factual accuracy. There simply was no hysteria about global cooling in the 70s. There were a total of two articles in major news publications. Is your criteria for "hysteria" really just two major articles?

Your timeline is also factually wrong. The two articles were in 1974 (Time) and 1975 (Newsweek). That's not the late 70s.

The only thing you were correct about is that there were some bad winters in the late 70s. As someone growing up in New York at the time I recall the 1978 blizzard well, mainly because to a kid it was totally awesome. I was really disappointed that nothing like that ever happened again while I lived there.
 
2013-12-30 02:05:32 PM  

Thrag: I_C_Weener: Thrag: I_C_Weener: Most of the hysteria was due to the late 70's bad winters and ergo, some scientist saying global cooling makes for some nice background for a media hsyteria article on snow.

There was no hysteria. The idea that there was is pure revisionist history.

You obviously are in the mood for a fight.  I am not.  Good day.

I'm not in the mood for a fight. I'm in the mood for factual accuracy. There simply was no hysteria about global cooling in the 70s. There were a total of two articles in major news publications. Is your criteria for "hysteria" really just two major articles?

Your timeline is also factually wrong. The two articles were in 1974 (Time) and 1975 (Newsweek). That's not the late 70s.

The only thing you were correct about is that there were some bad winters in the late 70s. As someone growing up in New York at the time I recall the 1978 blizzard well, mainly because to a kid it was totally awesome. I was really disappointed that nothing like that ever happened again while I lived there.


i586.photobucket.com
 
2013-12-30 02:07:04 PM  

ikanreed: trappedspirit: dookdookdook: OMG THERE'S ICE AT THE NORTH FARKING POLE GLOBAL WARMING IS A CONSPIRACY

ikanreed: Hey, guys, there's no global warming.  There's ice, at the north pole, in winter.  Even though there's less than any year in history besides last year or the year before, it's still totally evidence.


[democrat-independent-republican-belief-in-global-warming.jpg]

WTF?  Did you feel such a need to blurt out your bullshiat that you got your poles and seasons wrong?  Makes one wonder what else in your thinking is 180 degrees off.

Oh, look, I already addressed that very point in this thread.  But sure, you can jump on me without reading anything else I posted for the high crime of not reading an article the headline leads me to believe is link-bait.


wow.  you are one unpleasant bloke.  You blow up at everyone you disagree with, right or wrong?
 
2013-12-30 02:08:35 PM  

Tricky Chicken: ikanreed: Tricky Chicken: ikanreed: Tricky Chicken: Wow, please re-read your own post over and over until you understand it.

O...kay...  I have critically applied the concept both to itself, and the underlying point that you shouldn't be hung up on what was reported by some unspecified number of journalists 40 years ago.  I cannot figure out what I'm missing, so please stop assuming I'm aware of whatever hypocrisy you see.

Oh, it is clear that you are unaware.

Nope, you don't get to do that.  You don't get to be a dense motherfarker, have it pointed out to you, say "you too" and then act smug without justifying it.

Since you're not going to do that...  Let's go back to my point.

Are you going to stop repeating the nonsense about articles in the 70s, so we have one less idiot dragging down the debate in all these threads? If no, why not, elaborate, if you can?

No, I will not deny that there was a time in the 70s where there was reporting of a potentially looming global cooling cycle. But like I previously mentioned, I will point out that at that time, the understanding of the climate was not the same as it is now.  And while some at the time predicted a pending cooling period, almost nobody is making that prediction at this time. I will not ever go on a moronic tirade insisting that everyone that has even read the articles is a denier, because I know just how definitively stupid that position is.


No one is asking you to deny it, just to stop bringing it up as if it is relevant.
 
2013-12-30 02:10:19 PM  
Freshwater has a higher freezing point than sea water. Where could all this freshwater freezing around the continent of Antarctica be coming from? This continent covered in ice. It is a mystery that will never be solved.
 
2013-12-30 02:17:36 PM  

ikanreed: Tricky Chicken: ikanreed: Tricky Chicken: ikanreed: Tricky Chicken: Wow, please re-read your own post over and over until you understand it.

O...kay...  I have critically applied the concept both to itself, and the underlying point that you shouldn't be hung up on what was reported by some unspecified number of journalists 40 years ago.  I cannot figure out what I'm missing, so please stop assuming I'm aware of whatever hypocrisy you see.

Oh, it is clear that you are unaware.

Nope, you don't get to do that.  You don't get to be a dense motherfarker, have it pointed out to you, say "you too" and then act smug without justifying it.

Since you're not going to do that...  Let's go back to my point.

Are you going to stop repeating the nonsense about articles in the 70s, so we have one less idiot dragging down the debate in all these threads? If no, why not, elaborate, if you can?

No, I will not deny that there was a time in the 70s where there was reporting of a potentially looming global cooling cycle. But like I previously mentioned, I will point out that at that time, the understanding of the climate was not the same as it is now.  And while some at the time predicted a pending cooling period, almost nobody is making that prediction at this time. I will not ever go on a moronic tirade insisting that everyone that has even read the articles is a denier, because I know just how definitively stupid that position is.

No one is asking you to deny it, just to stop bringing it up as if it is relevant.


I didn't bring it up.
 
2013-12-30 02:28:22 PM  
Tricky Chicken:
I didn't bring it up.

Oh you were doing what I thought Dow Jones was doing, and he was doing what I thought you were.  Hm.
 
2013-12-30 02:33:00 PM  

SVenus: LavenderWolf: reputable climate scientist who thinks the Earth is too warm for ice at the poles

You really haven't been following much on the whole situation here, so I'll cut you some slack.
This Turney fellow saw a few cracks in the ice around his stranded ship and figured they'd be able to get out soon.
I related that in this thread.  If you're trying to imply I mentioned something about the Earth is too warm for ice at the poles, feel free to continue to do so, but that certainly misinterprets anything I've mentioned in this thread.

I will certainly imply that Turney and friends must have intended to show how the Antarctic is somehow showing effects of a warmer climate now by comparing the current trip to Antarctica to that of the one taken in 1912, and it was going very well for him until multiyear ice came and surrounded the vessel many many miles from shore.  It was a weather event that merely looks funny.  It's not in fact very funny at all.

Likewise, taking a boat and getting stuck and needing rescue in Northern Canada is also amusing on the surface, but that's not for this thread.

it's a fact that the amount of ice around Antarctica is far above a long term average, almost the same number of standard deviations above the long term average as the Arctic ice is below the long term average.  We have many threads on Arctic ice dissappearing, and very few on Antarctic ice increasing.  One might try to argue that the melting ice is actually causing more sea ice and still try to tack this increasing Antarctic ice on global warming, but the ice around Turney's little cruise is very thick multi year sea ice and very few iceburgs are blocking their way to the open ocean.  The argument is a possible one, but it's very much up for debate.

The helicopter(s) are on the way to rescue the vacationers as I type this.  Strangely, Turney and friends will consider this whole adventure a net positive for their cause, because of the worldwide attention to this debacle.


And it's continued intellectual dishonesty. You literally implied that the guy thought the ice was going to melt - in a specific instance - because of climate change. Homie don't play me like that.
 
2013-12-30 02:54:16 PM  

Shakin_Haitian: Freshwater has a higher freezing point than sea water. Where could all this freshwater freezing around the continent of Antarctica be coming from? This continent covered in ice. It is a mystery that will never be solved.


You helped solve it. Very worthy point!
freshwater from temporary icemelts, heavy snowfall or rain could make Antarctica occupy as large as Africa due to very thicke sea ice. [like 1/2 mile thick]

 it is summertime in Antarctica, btw.

All of the differing scientists are partially correct...
@Aesop
 
2013-12-30 03:02:46 PM  
I hope all participants on this trip get stuck with an equal share of the bill for all the costs incurred trying to save their worthless hides from their own self-glorification.
 
2013-12-30 03:31:02 PM  
I like ice.
 
2013-12-30 03:34:35 PM  
intelligent designed ice.
 
2013-12-30 03:36:27 PM  

Deep Contact: intelligent designed ice.


Ice 9?
 
2013-12-30 03:40:51 PM  

LavenderWolf: There isn't a climate scientist on the planet who thinks that the polar regions are ever going to be "warm."


Why not? In the Cretaceous, McMurdo would have been located on the shore of a temperate forest.
upload.wikimedia.org
 
2013-12-30 04:05:52 PM  
I don't care.

I'll continue not to care.

When I think I might start caring, I come to threads like these on the internet and am quickly reminded of why I don't care by folks like ikanreed.

Environmentalism is the new religion as evidenced by it's zealots.

Back to being a "denier." Oh my, how will I go on?
 
Displayed 50 of 202 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report