No need to worry. Al Gore will rescue them.

MSM Glosses Over Irony of Global Warming Scientists Trapped in Antarctic Ice

By P.J. Gladnick | December 28, 2013 | 18:46

Somewhere far, far to the south where it is summer, a group of global warming scientists are trapped in the Antarctic ice. If you missed the irony of that situation, it is because much of the mainstream media has glossed over that rather inconvenient bit of hilarity. As an example here is an Associated Press story that avoids mentioning the real mission of the scientists aboard the icebound Russian ship:

The Snow Dragon icebreaker came within 7 miles (11 kilometers) of the Russian ship MV Akademik Shokalskiy, which has been stuck since Christmas Eve, but had to retreat after the ice became too thick, said expedition spokesman Alvin Stone.

The Akademik Shokalskiy, which has been on a research expedition to Antarctica, got stuck Tuesday after a blizzard's whipping winds pushed the sea ice around the ship, freezing it in place. The ship wasn't in danger of sinking, and there are weeks' worth of supplies for the 74 scientists, tourists and crew on board, but the vessel cannot move.

So what was the exact mission of these scientists? AP is rather vague about this reporting only:

The scientific team on board the research ship — which left New Zealand on Nov. 28 — had been recreating Australian explorer Douglas Mawson's century-old voyage to Antarctica when it became trapped. They plan to continue their expedition after they are freed, expedition leader Chris Turney said.

Um, there is a bit more to the expedition than merely following in the footsteps of a century-old voyage. But what that mission really is, AP won't say. If AP is vague about the mission's purpose, Reuters provides even less information.

Since the MSM isn't forthcoming as to the real purpose of those scientists traveling to Antarctica, we turn to Watts Up With That for more insight:

The expedition is being led by Chris Turney, “climate scientist”, who has “set up a carbon refining company called Carbonscape which has developed technology to fix carbon from the atmosphere and make a host of green bi-products, helping reduce greenhouse gas levels.” The purpose of the expedition is “to discover and communicate the environmental changes taking place in the south.”

It seems they found out what the “environmental changes taking place in the south.” are.

Finally, National Geographic bluntly states the mission purpose:

...The current crop of explorers are hoping to document some of the same data and compare them to Mawson's numbers, "using the twist of modern technology," Turney told National Geographic earlier this month.

As may be expected, global warming might play a role in this, he suggests, particularly with respect to melted ice in the East Antarctic.

Ah, so now we see why the MSM reluctance to flat out state why the scientists are in the Antarctic. Anything to avoid an inconvenient (but accurate) headline like this:


http://newsbusters.org/blogs/pj-gladnick/2013/12/28/msm-glosses-over-irony-global-warming-scientists-trapped-antarctic-ice#ixzz2ovITxKYv

Facts are mere inconveniences to the liberal controlled media. Just something to be worked around, ignored, or distorted. I'm sure they'll say the weather that has trapped these scientists is itself caused by manmade global warming.


Oh yeah, and irony is also lost on the progressive set.

I slipped on some ice a few weeks ago after it snowed, its obvious that scientists are dead wrong about climate change.

anti-science fox newstard Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I slipped on some ice a few weeks ago after it
> snowed, its obvious that scientists are dead wrong
> about climate change.


Now you're getting it.

There is a mysterious pyramid in Antarctica buried under thousands of years of ice. Rumor has it there are human skeletons with ripped open rib cages scattered about in the pyramid.

They need to be careful and not disturb the alien seeds of doom. They hatch after they warm up and out comes a deadly Crinoid.
Attachments:

eesh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> There is a mysterious pyramid in Antarctica buried
> under thousands of years of ice. Rumor has it
> there are human skeletons with ripped open rib
> cages scattered about in the pyramid.


Watched that a few years ago. Can't decide it if was good or bad. I do think it had to have been borne from a stoner conversation starting with, "duuude, you know what would an awesome movie?"

The first Alien vs Predator was pretty stupid. I did like the sequel though, especially when they showed the Predator home world.

serves em right! but why so silent media?!

Libtards!

Because it's climate change not "global warming".

ColumnNo.4 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Because it's climate change not "global warming".

That's right, Comrade, Minitruth has declared that "global warming" is doubleplusungood and has never, ever existed.

"Global warming" was a knee-jerk laments term reaction to the science, climate change is the scientific term for it. Hotter in one area, colder in another, massive swings in temperature, ocean level increases, etc.

When its warmer outside it's because of global warming. When its colder outside it's because of global warming. When it snows more it's because of global warming. When it snows less its because of global warming. Big hurricane season? That's because of global warming. No hurricanes this year? That's because of global warming. The Antarctic ice pack is getting smaller because of global warming. Except for the last two years where it has become bigger because of global warming. Redskins 3-13? Yep, global warming again. Fuckin' Shanny got fired because of global warming. Dumbasses on some ship got iced in because of global warming.

When its warmer outside it's because of global warming climate change. When its colder outside it's because of global warming climate change. When it snows more it's because of global warming climate change. When it snows less its because of global warming climate change. Big hurricane season? That's because of global warming climate change. No hurricanes this year? That's because of global warming climate change. The Antarctic ice pack is getting smaller because of global warming climate change. Except for the last two years where it has become bigger because of global warming climate change. Redskins 3-13? Yep, global warming climate change again. Fuckin' Shanny got fired because of global warming climate change. Dumbasses on some ship got iced in because of global warming climate change.

Comrade No. 4 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> When its warmer outside it's because of global
> warming climate change. When its colder
> outside it's because of global warming
> climate change. When it snows more it's because of
> global warming climate change. When it
> snows less its because of global warming
> climate change. Big hurricane season? That's
> because of global warming climate change.
> No hurricanes this year? That's because of
> global warming climate change. The
> Antarctic ice pack is getting smaller because of
> global warming climate change. Except for
> the last two years where it has become bigger
> because of global warming climate change.
> Redskins 3-13? Yep, global warming climate
> change again. Fuckin' Shanny got fired because of
> global warming climate change. Dumbasses on
> some ship got iced in because of global
> warming climate change.

We tried "Global Warming" but people finally saw through it so we changed it to "Climate Change". What will we call it next week?

Al Goretex Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> We tried "Global Warming" but people finally saw
> through it so we changed it to "Climate Change".
> What will we call it next week?

Weather

Well it's too bad the vast majority of scientists, sans corporate ones, agree that climate change is real.

of course change is real, mubledeeznutz. Your claim of human caused globull warmening, not so much.

A local contractor was killing illegals to avoid paying them and buried the bodies at the South Pole in a mass grave, the Russians were closing in on him.

KISS Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Al Goretex Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > We tried "Global Warming" but people finally
> saw
> > through it so we changed it to "Climate
> Change".
> > What will we call it next week?
>
> Weather

+1

Polar and Greenland ice. But hey just keep denying. That's what conservatives do best and the facts are so bold conservatives have to agree.
Attachments:

will know if climate change was real and could turn off the lights.

The denial in all likelihood stems from the Biblical belief that man cannot destroy the world, the destruction of the world is not under his control, not unlike the disrespect for animals stemming from the "god granted man dominion over the animals".

.
Attachments:

I actually know someone who works for NOAA who corroborates the science of climate change.

I actually know someone in NOAA who corroborates the science of climate change is actually a false religion for those who have none but are the type that still needs one to believe in.

See what I did there? Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I actually know someone in NOAA who corroborates
> the science of climate change is actually a false
> religion for those who have none but are the type
> that still needs one to believe in.


Yeah, the typical Republican counter argument of "nu uh".

Funny, I know someone from Fox News who thinks the GOP are dead on arrival.

.
Attachments:

Can we not post shit that doesnt make sense to the scientific debate dumbass Republicans. Then you wonder why people dont take you serious.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/31/2013 06:54PM by Gerrymanderer2.

ColumnNo.4 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Well it's too bad the vast majority of scientists,
> sans corporate ones, agree that climate change is
> real.


Here, I will fix it for you:
The vast majority of scientists, who derive their income from climate change (global warming), agree that climate change is real.

And explain to me how these scientists derive their income from climate change?

Typical right wing conspiracy theories about science, which they don't believe in, conspiring to do in the poor big businesses.

ColumnNo.4 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> And explain to me how these scientists derive
> their income from climate change?

Ill let a former MIT professor explain it too you, its really not hard to figure out at all.

"According to Lindzen, scientists make essentially “meaningless” claims about certain phenomenon. Activists for certain causes take up claims made by scientists and politicians respond to the alarmism spread by activists by doling out more research funding. — creating an “Iron Triangle” of poor incentives."

Billions are spent on research for it, if they say theyre wrong their job goes away. I guess they havent covered how research grants work in class yet.

So you're claiming that the vast majority of scientists have been paid off and the ones that are truly correct are the ones being paid by fossil fuel companies? At the same time you're leading us to believe that activists, who run on donations, are out paying the fossil fuel companies.

ColumnNo.4 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So you're claiming that the vast majority of
> scientists have been paid off and the ones that
> are truly correct are the ones being paid by
> fossil fuel companies? At the same time you're
> leading us to believe that activists, who run on
> donations, are out paying the fossil fuel
> companies.


And once again youre just making stuff up as you go along and everything went over your head. Put down the weed.

The man made global warming is a small but very vocal group of scientists. Their data is consistently proven wrong and their models are constantly being redone predicting even bigger future changes to stay relevant. They get government grants to continue their research. If they say its all natural the money goes away.

Liberal politicians take advantage of uninformaed people like yourself campaigning on it making false claims that data doesnt support. That also leads to grants being given and a level of prestige being on the side of the inner circle.

The group that originally made the claims was incredibly small, it still is small but has gained some other people who just want to latch on to get a sense of self importance they arent worthy of believing theyre saving the world while enjoying all the money flowing in. Theyre the same kind of people who said an ice age was coming the hole in the O-Zone layer was going to destroy the earth or that their would never be fish again after the Exxon Valdezx. Every single claim was wrong. After this passes theyll just have something new as well.

Meanwhile real scientists are actually out doing science instead of blabbing about everything making extraordinary claims like someone trying to sell you gold. People that believe in science know what a farce its been. Its never been about anything more than an excuse to implement new taxes for the greater good of course.

I'm not making anything up, I'm critiquing your claims utilising common sense. You're drawing up this conspiracy theory in which liberals are somehow able to out fund fossil fuel companies and create this lie for then sole purpose of maintaining their funding. On the other hand we have fossil fuel companies paying scientists to claim climate change is a facade, which benefits the fossil companies because they're less likely to suffer regulations.

Science combined with common sense tell you the deniers are in it for the pocket profit.

Let me know how the denying is working when you're south Florida condo or Mississippi home is underwater, your Arizona house is inhospitable or something of the like.

ColumnNo.4 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Let me know how the denying is working when you're
> south Florida condo or Mississippi home is
> underwater, your Arizona house is inhospitable or
> something of the like.


Youre always make really intelligent points on here. That money youre spending on the community college degree is really paying off.

If only there werent dinosaurs there never would have been an ice age. Thank god though cavemen discovered fire to end it.

Its truly amazing though how nothing about the earth of its climate has changed over so many millions of years.

The fact that you think there is a conspiracy of scientists whose sole purpose is to collectively fabricate a global catastrophe in order to secure funding is absurd, it's on an Illuminati scale. What's not unbelievable is fossil fuel companies, driven by the profit motive, paying scientists to deny climate change in order to throw a wrench of doubt into the any possible change the U.S., as the sole doubter, might enact to stem the tide.

Global climate change -- The Antarctic is getting cold. Previously it was warm hence Ant-Arctic (opposite of the Arctic pole). Don't you people know anything?

ColumnNo.4 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The fact that you think there is a conspiracy of
> scientists whose sole purpose is to collectively
> fabricate a global catastrophe in order to secure
> funding is absurd, it's on an Illuminati scale.
> What's not unbelievable is fossil fuel companies,
> driven by the profit motive, paying scientists to
> deny climate change in order to throw a wrench of
> doubt into the any possible change the U.S., as
> the sole doubter, might enact to stem the tide.


The models that they all relied on have proven to be completely inaccurate, with the global temperature falling outside the lowest predicted range. All models used the same 4 datasets, 2 of which were derivative of 2 of the 4. The scientists who supported global warming rejected all other theories and many actively worked to suppress publication of differing points of view. This is junk science and only fools like you still believe blindly.

And that's why they're sticking with their initial assessment. The problem with you lot is you don't believe in science to begin with.

ColumnNo.4 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> And that's why they're sticking with their initial
> assessment. The problem with you lot is you don't
> believe in science to begin with.


Two assertions, two fails. Keeping your record of ineptness at 100%.

Blindly spouting nonsense Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ColumnNo.4 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > And that's why they're sticking with their
> initial
> > assessment. The problem with you lot is you
> don't
> > believe in science to begin with.
>
>
> Two assertions, two fails. Keeping your record of
> ineptness at 100%.

Still holding onto your conspiracy theories I take it? Jesse Ventura would be proud of you.

ColumnNo.4 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> And that's why they're sticking with their initial
> assessment. The problem with you lot is you don't
> believe in science to begin with.


What the fuck does "not believe in science" even mean? Science, when done correctly, isn't something that requires faith or belief. Scientists aren't gods and they are wrong much more than they are right. Any real scientist will tell you that. You don't know shit about science and the fact that you attach words like "believe" to it shows that in spades. You believe scientists, not science twit.

When a majority of climate scientists come to the conclusion that something is occurring it's safe to say it's probably occurring. Only a moron, when presented with information from experts on a subject, would refute it without any facts in which to do so.

ColumnNo.4 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> When a majority of climate scientists come to the
> conclusion that something is occurring it's safe
> to say it's probably occurring. Only a moron,
> when presented with information from experts on a
> subject, would refute it without any facts in
> which to do so.


Then why are the models wrong? They couldn't even get it right 8 years out? You've been presented with facts on numerous posts in this thread, yet you go back to the same thing ("a majority of scientists blah, blah, blah). Even the UN admitted that global warming theories were incorrect. You are no different than some nutty religious kook who continues to believe the dogma of his church even when shown it's full of crap. You aren't worth debating as you offer nothing but the exact same post over and over again. Luckily, less than half of the American public still believes in this junk so you and your ilk have already lost the debate.

If those models were incorrect then you would have had a mass exodus from the climate change science community, that hasn't happened. Yes, less than half of the US believes in climate change, less than half of the US believes in science as well. Tells you a lot about this "exceptional" nation.

ColumnNo.4 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> When a majority of climate scientists come to the
> conclusion that something is occurring it's safe
> to say it's probably occurring. Only a moron,
> when presented with information from experts on a
> subject, would refute it without any facts in
> which to do so.

Alright, Chicken Little; you're going to tell me that the climate has been sooo severely affected in the last 100 years by suv's and cow farts?

Agnostic Weatherman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ColumnNo.4 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > When a majority of climate scientists come to
> the
> > conclusion that something is occurring it's
> safe
> > to say it's probably occurring. Only a moron,
> > when presented with information from experts on
> a
> > subject, would refute it without any facts in
> > which to do so.
>
> Alright, Chicken Little; you're going to tell me
> that the climate has been sooo severely affected
> in the last 100 years by suv's and cow farts?


You're going to tell me that deforestation and an increase in pollution doesn't effect anything?

Forrests get replanted, and the pollution problems in this country have been on the wane since the 1970's.
Take your "Man made climate change" pamphlets over to China, Korea, India, and Russia.

Agnostic Weatherman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Forrests get replanted, and the pollution problems
> in this country have been on the wane since the
> 1970's.
> Take your "Man made climate change" pamphlets over
> to China, Korea, India, and Russia.


How far up your ass did you have to go to pull that bullshit out?

ColumnNo.4 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Agnostic Weatherman Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Forrests get replanted, and the pollution
> problems
> > in this country have been on the wane since the
> > 1970's.
> > Take your "Man made climate change" pamphlets
> over
> > to China, Korea, India, and Russia.
>
>
> How far up your ass did you have to go to pull
> that bullshit out?

Yours is the typical cornered rat response, I now claim victory.
Remember kids; climate is what you expect, weather is what you get.

Do I seriously need to go through the hassle of producing a graphic illustrating the issue of deforestation? Of pollution?

ColumnNo.4 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Do I seriously need to go through the hassle of
> producing a graphic illustrating the issue of
> deforestation? Of pollution?


Wow, sounds like someone has a terminal case of no GF.

ColumnNo.4 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Agnostic Weatherman Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Forrests get replanted, and the pollution
> problems
> > in this country have been on the wane since the
> > 1970's.
> > Take your "Man made climate change" pamphlets
> over
> > to China, Korea, India, and Russia.
>
>
> How far up your ass did you have to go to pull
> that bullshit out?

In the early 70's "scientists" were predicting another Ice Age.

ColumnNo.4 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> When a majority of climate scientists come to the
> conclusion that something is occurring it's safe
> to say it's probably occurring. Only a moron,
> when presented with information from experts on a
> subject, would refute it without any facts in
> which to do so.

Fixed it for you again:
When a majority of climate scientists, who make their living promoting global warming, come to the conclusion that something is occurring it's safe to say it's probably not occurring. Only a moron, when presented with information from experts who make their living from promoting global warming, would agree with global warming.

Always follow the money.

Al Jezerra Gore Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ColumnNo.4 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > When a majority of climate scientists come to
> the
> > conclusion that something is occurring it's
> safe
> > to say it's probably occurring. Only a moron,
> > when presented with information from experts on
> a
> > subject, would refute it without any facts in
> > which to do so.
>
> Fixed it for you again:
> When a majority of climate scientists, who make
> their living promoting global warming, come to the
> conclusion that something is occurring it's safe
> to say it's probably not occurring. Only a moron,
> when presented with information from experts who
> make their living from promoting global warming,
> would agree with global warming.
>
> Always follow the money.

Still pushing your conspiracy theories, I see.

No conspiracy theory at all. I guess you are saying that the scientists who are researching global warming don't believe in it? Either they do or they don't. Either way, that is how they get their money. Never bite the hand that feeds you.

Al Jezerra Gore Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> No conspiracy theory at all. I guess you are
> saying that the scientists who are researching
> global warming don't believe in it? Either they
> do or they don't. Either way, that is how they
> get their money. Never bite the hand that feeds
> you.


If a scientist told you the earth wasn't flat and their research was conducted with grants you wouldn't believe them. Part of that population that doesn't believe in science?

Your stupidity is amazing. Science is not a belief system. That was explained to you above. Go back and read it.

Al Jezerra Gore Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Your stupidity is amazing. Science is not a
> belief system. That was explained to you above.
> Go back and read it.


Don't play stupid. You don't believe it to ever be truthful.

Al Jezerra Gore Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Your stupidity is amazing. Science is not a
> belief system. That was explained to you above.
> Go back and read it.


It is when you're a climate change evangelist.

It's a faith-based belief.

No point in arguing with a blind believer.

Global warming is a religion, certainly not science.

Al Jezerra Gore Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Global warming is a religion, certainly not
> science.


You probably believe LGBT causes are a religion as well.

ColumnNo.4 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Al Jezerra Gore Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Global warming is a religion, certainly not
> > science.
>
>
> You probably believe LGBT causes are a religion as
> well.


It is hard to stay on subject when you know global warming is junk science and all of your arguments won't stand up.

Al Jezera Gore Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ColumnNo.4 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Al Jezerra Gore Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Global warming is a religion, certainly not
> > > science.
> >
> >
> > You probably believe LGBT causes are a religion
> as
> > well.
>
>
> It is hard to stay on subject when you know global
> warming is junk science and all of your arguments
> won't stand up.


Or I've grown tired of listening to you claim a global conspiracy of scientists are bent on destroying the fossil fuel industry.

aka How libtards attempt to distort facts using 'science.'

http://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2013/09/Montford-Consensus.pdf

ColumnNo.4 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Al Jezera Gore Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > ColumnNo.4 Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Al Jezerra Gore Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > > > Global warming is a religion, certainly not
> > > > science.
> > >
> > >
> > > You probably believe LGBT causes are a
> religion
> > as
> > > well.
> >
> >
> > It is hard to stay on subject when you know
> global
> > warming is junk science and all of your
> arguments
> > won't stand up.
>
>
> Or I've grown tired of listening to you claim a
> global conspiracy of scientists are bent on
> destroying the fossil fuel industry.

So you have trouble staying on topic for whatever reason. If you want to discuss LGBT issues, you should start another thread. You certainly have contributed nothing to further the cause of global warming.

And I did not "claim a global conspiracy of scientists bent on destroying the fossil fuel industry." In fact, if you actually read this thread, I said nothing about the fossil fuel industry.

You're seriously going to attempt to refute a majority of climate change scientists with a piece written by a blogger with a chemistry degree, and a suspect one at that?

When a large group of people, a transnational group of people, agree on something and you accuse them of doing so to further their own gain that's a conspiracy.

ColumnNo.4 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You're seriously going to attempt to refute a
> majority of climate change scientists with a piece
> written by a blogger with a chemistry degree, and
> a suspect one at that?


Unfortunately you can't refute that the basis for the 97% claim and methods employed in deriving it are exactly as he describes.

But don't feel bad, neither could John Cook. Sorry that you were fooled into buying the derivative talking point bs.

ColumnNo.4 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> When a large group of people, a transnational
> group of people, agree on something and you accuse
> them of doing so to further their own gain that's
> a conspiracy.

So it is not a conspiracy unless someone accuses them of doing so for their own gain? Then by your silly definition, every organization in the world is a conspiracy. Did you read what you wrote?

Cooked books Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ColumnNo.4 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > You're seriously going to attempt to refute a
> > majority of climate change scientists with a
> piece
> > written by a blogger with a chemistry degree,
> and
> > a suspect one at that?
>
>
> Unfortunately you can't refute that the basis for
> the 97% claim and methods employed in deriving it
> are exactly as he describes.
>
> But don't feel bad, neither could John Cook.
> Sorry that you were fooled into buying the
> derivative talking point bs.


Have you researched the man who wrote the piece you just linked?

Al Jezerra Gore Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ColumnNo.4 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > When a large group of people, a transnational
> > group of people, agree on something and you
> accuse
> > them of doing so to further their own gain
> that's
> > a conspiracy.
>
> So it is not a conspiracy unless someone accuses
> them of doing so for their own gain? Then by your
> silly definition, every organization in the world
> is a conspiracy. Did you read what you wrote?


What you're doing is equivalent to claiming the JFK assassination or 9/11 was an inside job. You know what I mean. It's fucking absurd to think that all of these scientists are colluding for the sole purpose of grant money, lunacy. It's even worse that you think scientists paid off by fossil fuel companies, who have a lot to gain from denying, and a fucking blogger are the ones with the correct information. If you simply believe that man will not end the world because of some biblical scripture then say so but don't try to pass off the "science" of a few big business lackeys as the truth.

ColumnNo.4 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Cooked books Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > ColumnNo.4 Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > You're seriously going to attempt to refute a
> > > majority of climate change scientists with a
> > piece
> > > written by a blogger with a chemistry degree,
> > and
> > > a suspect one at that?
> >
> >
> > Unfortunately you can't refute that the basis
> for
> > the 97% claim and methods employed in deriving
> it
> > are exactly as he describes.
> >
> > But don't feel bad, neither could John Cook.
> > Sorry that you were fooled into buying the
> > derivative talking point bs.
>
>
> Have you researched the man who wrote the piece
> you just linked?


I don't need to research the man. I can read Cook's work for myself and see that Montford's assessment is in fact correct. As I can assess the several other similar specious claims of overwhelming consensus, all of which have been shot down upon closer examination.

That's the difference between me, someone with a hard science background, and those like you - I don't have to rely on someone else to tell me what I'm supposed to think. Nor do I only read and accept things from one side or another based on who it is.

Wow, so a blogger with a chemistry degree who has been deemed dodgey in his research now levies more power than a plethora of climate scientists. I never thought I'd see the day when a blogger rose to such status.

Your last statement is proof of your delusional state. Enjoy your bubble.

ColumnNo.4 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Wow, so a blogger with a chemistry degree who has
> been deemed dodgey in his research now levies more
> power than a plethora of climate scientists. I
> never thought I'd see the day when a blogger rose
> to such status.
>
> Your last statement is proof of your delusional
> state. Enjoy your bubble.


Yet, you can't read Cook's original study and refute the points he makes in his criticism.

Enjoy your own...

Cooked books Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ColumnNo.4 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Wow, so a blogger with a chemistry degree who
> has
> > been deemed dodgey in his research now levies
> more
> > power than a plethora of climate scientists. I
> > never thought I'd see the day when a blogger
> rose
> > to such status.
> >
> > Your last statement is proof of your delusional
> > state. Enjoy your bubble.
>
>
> Yet, you can't read Cook's original study and
> refute the points he makes in his criticism.
>
> Enjoy your own...

Why would I bother refuting the claims of a half assed blogger who has a reputation for dodgey research practices? I wouldn't bother refuting a 9/11 conspiracy theorist either.

ColumnNo.4 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Cooked books Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > ColumnNo.4 Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Wow, so a blogger with a chemistry degree who
> > has
> > > been deemed dodgey in his research now levies
> > more
> > > power than a plethora of climate scientists.
> I
> > > never thought I'd see the day when a blogger
> > rose
> > > to such status.
> > >
> > > Your last statement is proof of your
> delusional
> > > state. Enjoy your bubble.
> >
> >
> > Yet, you can't read Cook's original study and
> > refute the points he makes in his criticism.
> >
> > Enjoy your own...
>
> Why would I bother refuting the claims of a half
> assed blogger who has a reputation for dodgey
> research practices? I wouldn't bother refuting a
> 9/11 conspiracy theorist either.


Exactly. You prefer to remain in your own little bubble and accept on faith what the high priests have told you is the 'truth.'

But as I said, you don't have to read anything other than Cook's own paper to see that the claim of 97% consensus isn't actually what was shown. I've read both. You've read neither. But that won't stop you from continuing to parrot the claim.

When a large group of experts agree on something then I typically believe them, combined with my own climate knowledge and the expertise of a neighbor who works for climatology for NOAA. You seem to think that fabricating your own reality is equal to being an independent thinker.

ColumnNo.4 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> When a large group of experts agree on something
> then I typically believe them, combined with my
> own climate knowledge and the expertise of a
> neighbor who works for climatology for NOAA. You
> seem to think that fabricating your own reality is
> equal to being an independent thinker.


^ lulz

If you actually read Cook, et. al.'s paper then you'd see that even by their own numbers, the fairly slanted approach used, and the broad characterizations with respect to exactly what parties were "endorsing," the percentage deemed to be expressing "endorsement" of AGW was only ~32% (3,896 out of 11,944) with 66.4%(7,930) expressing no position. They only get to the 97% number by further limiting the pool (aka selection bias) to those they deemed as expressing an endorsing opinion. Which further has been challenged by various parties whose papers were reviewed and included in that group.

And btw, Cook isn't a 'climate scientist' either. He's a 'blogger' (gasp) (skepticalscience.com) with a psychology degree who was hired on as a "Climate Communication Fellow" by a AGW advocacy group (i.e., someone to help come up with talking points for dummies like you).

Very good. Attempting to refute climate change with research produced by someone with zero expertise in the field. And this blogger with a psych degree is more reputable than climate scientists. I'll remember to consult my father, with his criminal justice degree, the next time I have a medical issue.

ColumnNo.4 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Very good. Attempting to refute climate change
> with research produced by someone with zero
> expertise in the field. And this blogger with a
> psych degree is more reputable than climate
> scientists. I'll remember to consult my father,
> with his criminal justice degree, the next time I
> have a medical issue.


WTF are you babbling about now?

Cook is the author of the ORIGINAL PAPER which Obama, you, et. al., are relying on for the 97% number.

Dumbass. lol

I don't give two shiny shores what paper Obama used. I keep up to date on climate change news, I'm not going back years to find some ancient study.

ColumnNo.4 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I don't give two shiny shores what paper Obama
> used. I keep up to date on climate change news,
> I'm not going back years to find some ancient
> study.


Obviously.

lulz

I don't base my dialectic is based on constantly updated information, not a singular piece of information from times past.

ColumnNo.4 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I don't base my dialectic is based on constantly
> updated information, not a singular piece of
> information from times past.


Obviously.

lulz

ColumnNo.4 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I base my dialectic is based on constantly
> updated information, not a singular piece of
> information from times past.

Edit.

The Chinese icebreaker that rescued the passengers is now itself getting stuck in the ice and another icebreaker may be needed to rescue the Chicoms. Too funny

The same Chicoms who machine-gunned our boys at the Yalu?

Shit, call down some Sabre jets to blow that ship outta the water!

lol, do dumb republicans really think that winter won't be cold because of global warming?? the northern hemisphere still tilts away from the sun for half the year you idiots.

Low of 8 degrees on Monday in Fairfax. If that doesnt prove my theory of global warming nothing does. Buy my book and send me money.

I don't even think we are at the point where we can argue about whose model is correct. The collection of climate data over the past 100 years has been sketchy at best. Urban heat islands have skewed the collected data for years and there is no clear way to correct for this. Since we are talking about warming in terms of fractions of degrees (for the global mean) errors in the initial data will make any model hard to rely upon.

That said, we are seeing global climate change. But then, we are always seeing global climate change. Climate is not static. One cold day, or one ice flow in Antarctic is not an indicator of any long term trend or pattern.

Lastly, at one point leading scientists believe the earth was center of the solar system. It was obvious since everything appeared to revolve around the Earth.

The sun just experienced a reversal of its magnetic poles. We know it will effect our climate, but scientists are sure how. This occurs every 11 years. You idiots who think man has more effect on our climate than nature itself or the sun are well, idiots.

... scientists "aren't" sure how...

No wonder no one knows about the global warming part of this story. The media hasn't covered it at all.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/mike-ciandella/2014/01/02/frozen-out-98-stories-ignore-ice-bound-ship-was-global-warming-missi

If you refuse to believe it then it's not true.

I have to say, ColumnNo.4 certainly got his ass handed to him royally in this thread. Taking hits from multiple sides, it was good see him do down in flames.

Some days it is hot some days cold. Sometimes it rains sometimes it doesnt. Get used to it.