Chopper rescue of Global Warmist expedition trapped in ice is abandoned due to snow storm.
Wait... even though they are trapped unexpectedly in sea ice, the sea ice is disappearing, yet it is killing the forests of algae beneath because it is increasing? And the change toward cooling might have all these possible bad effects? These people are incoherent!
The Mawson expedition 100 years ago found the same spot to be wide open sea:
But this is all just weather, of course.
And they still need more money:
9 comments:
"An Inconvenient Truth" indeed.
The picture of the ship stranded in the ice would be perfect visual irony if the name of the ship translated into "Global Warming".
I love the "weasel wording":
"Who can say what effects the regional circulation changes may have on the ice sheet of the Antarctic plateau, or whether the low number of seals suggests changes to their population."
First, THESE are the people who ARE saying what effects are being created by Global Warming. This is "established science" (established only by political consensus), don't you know? So why is reality so stubbornly refusing to validate their computer models and beliefs? Are there changes to the regional circulation patterns caused by anthropogenic global warming? (Pun alert: Isn't that circular reasoning?) Is so, would that affect local temperatures only, or would it have global impact? Or is it the other way around, that the global warming is affecting local temperatures? (???) Is this a mis-application of the butterfly effect from chaos theory? A soldier in Afghanistan lights a cigarette to keep warm, and causes the entire Earth to experience Global Warming.
Second, "the low number of seals" seems (to me) to do more than merely "suggest" a change in population. The measured number of seals has decreased, remained stable, or increased - period. If the number of seals has changed since last measured, then the population HAS changed; there is no "suggestion" of change. If our intrepid reporter has no idea how many seals existed prior to her current "low number" (which I'm willing to bet is based on her "feelings", not a "wild-ass guess", not even a "scientific wild-ass guess"), then I submit that there is insufficient data upon which to speculate about seal population change, and even less data to "suggest" a connection to our favorite Global Warming theory.
This is the kind of amorphous bilge (masquerading as science) associated with the entire Gaia-centered Global Warming religion.
This inquiring mind wants to know how they followed in the "footsteps" of Sir Douglas Mawson as they rode on a ship into Commonwealth Bay. Talk about mangled metaphors! Or perhaps I really misunderstood, and no metaphor was intended: are the members of the expedition materialist scientismists? I suspect that is the case, given their consistently incoherent statements.
Just having fun, y'all.
Happy New Year, fellow Gaians!
As Watts pointed out, the expedition was loaded with media types, so the hype is an extension of natural media lies multiplied by scientist's needs for a particular outcome in order to guarantee future funding. This chain of reporting is interrupted by brute facts which must be denied, but are too brutish to escape (literally). They are being bludgeoned by facts.
Hilarious how they claim one thing while watching the opposite happen right in their face. What ignorance! Science is supposed to upon observable facts, not fitting data to a manufactured crisis or fantastical theories. The whole field has become a massive joke.
Sea ice can also grow, because more moisture is able to be contained in warmer air. Global warming involves "turning up the contrast", not just a smooth "warming." Cold areas will get colder, warm areas will get warmer, dry areas drier, and wet areas wetter.
Martin, so what you're saying is that 'global warming' is capable of doing all things, correct? Funny, I seem to have heard of another magical theory which somehow accomplishes all things...
No, clearly not. It won't make cold areas less cold, or warm areas less warm, or dry areas less dry, or wet areas less wet.
What it will do is make cold areas colder, warm areas warmer, dry areas drier, and wet areas wetter.
Like I said, it's like turning up the contrast on a photo, wherein the dark areas get darker and light areas get lighter, etc. Turning up the contras is not "all things."
Martin,
What is your source for this "higher contrast" claim? It seems to go against the theory under which the Mawson memorial ice disaster warmist exploration was based. And if the cold gets colder, while the warm gets warmer, then the net result is not rising seas. And the existence of extra heat in warm places seems not to be occuring, nor the existence of droughts. So exactly what set of principles wring out this anything-can-happen theory?
Ok, first it was global cooling, then global warming, then climate change, et al. Whatever label suits the agenda. These pseudo-scientists are more the order of a bureaucracy, force-feeding the public with this alarmist crap in order to ensure their funding doesn't get cut.
Stan,
From the IPCC AR4.
Michael,
No, it was always climate change. The intergovernmental panel on climate change was created in 1988. "Alarmist crap" mostly comes from media hype, not climate scientists.
Post a Comment