Select to expand quoteFlySurfer said..
Climate alarmists stuck in ice trying to prove there's no ice... evacuated by global warming helicopter.
www.climatedepot.com/2019/09/09/climate-warriors-filming-documentary-stuck-in-arctic-ice-all-16-climate-activists-evacuated-from-ship-by-helicopter/
A previous alarmist attempt to prove melting ice had to turn back in JULY bcos: 'We had expected more melting': Thick Arctic ice forces Norwegian climate research icebreaker to turn back.
1- Absolute complete and utter BULL****. They were NOT "climate alarmists" and they were not "filming a documentary". They were a bunch of middle-aged guys who were trying to recreate an earlier exploratory expedition. The leader of the trip has tried to correct the story, but the denialist sites refuse to listen to him telling them the truth.
See svalbardposten.no/nyheter/ut-mot-massiv-feilinformasjon/19.11400
By the way, the ship was just stuck in ice for one day. It happens. The wind shifts and blows the ice around. The captain and crew stayed aboard and got the ship out a day later; see
icepeople.net/tag/ms-malmo/
www.cruiseindustrynews.com/cruise-news/21460-passengers-airlifted-in-svalbard-as-ship-is-stuck-in-ice.html
Here's the leader's FB page, complete with info about a similar expedition last year. www.facebook.com/tore.topp.1
2- No, the Norwegian icebreaker did NOT turn back because of thick Arctic ice. It had propeller bearing trouble; "there was a leak in the port propeller's house and Crown Prince Haakon had to cancel the cruise."
See the story from the ship's operator here, complete with pics of the affected area;
www.hi.no/hi/nyheter/2019/juli/pakning-arsak-til-toktavbrudd
Sorry, but you are just believing lies.
Select to expand quoteFoghorn said..
Got it .ship got stuck in ice.
Ship broke breaking ice.Captain expected less ice.
There is no evidence at all that the "ship broke breaking ice" or that the "ship got stuck in ice". The simple statement from the ship's operator is "Loose bolts in shaft seal to port propeller housing on "Crown Prince Haakon" led to oil leakage. It was this that caused the voyage in the Arctic Ocean to be cancelled".
The research institute that had staff on the ship gave the same reason; " loose bolts in the shaft seal of the ship's propeller housing were the reason why the ship had to turn........ the ship had to turn at 85 degrees because the loose bolts created trouble."
See www.universitetsavisa.no/forskning/2019/07/31/L%C3%B8se-bolter-f%C3%B8rte-til-at-forskningstokt-i-Polhavet-m%C3%A5tte-avbrytes-19601830.ece?fbclid=IwAR1i_zo0meHrUYQOxwtt57DBJUjgth74YFIWoiJ05cjZD0sESPDz_1deD6I
So on the one hand we have NO evidence that the "the ship broke breaking ice" or "got stuck in ice". On the other hand we have the operators and passengers saying that the fairly new ship had bearing packing problem. Why claim that the people who OWN and WERE ON the ship are liars and that some websites that give NO evidence and have NO witnesses are right?
The thickness of ice varies dramatically because ice gets blown around. That is the issue that caused the loss of Endurance and many other polar exploration vessels. Therefore the fact that they found thicker than expected ice in one location does not prove anything about the thickness of the ice overall. To say that finding thicker than expected ice in one location proves anything about the overall ice thickness is like saying that because there are big waves at one beach in Tasmania, there must be big waves in Queensland.
Fact is that some "denialist" sites are just writing bull****. The "climate activitists" never existed, the other ship did not "break breaking ice".
Select to expand quoteFoghorn said..
Got it .ship got stuck in ice.
Ship broke breaking ice.Captain expected less ice.
deniers have to lie.
Probably pushing it beyond its design capabilities.I know from experience of repairing ships captains have a habit if doing this.
The captain of this ship has been quoted that some ice was impenetrable and he'd expected more melting.Alot of backing up and forward thrust to break ice would explain why bolts came loose unless the apprentice done them up loctite shouldn't be needed.
I guess you have to come home if your boat starts leaking not because there's some ice .
Select to expand quoteChris 249 said..
1- No, you have not provided any "factual evidence for your generalisations". Any claim that the views of a single poster on a single site is "factual evidence" of the beliefs held by millions of other people is illogical and unscientific; unless of course you've just decided to define "the left" in your own terms and in a way that suits your argument.
The left" is generally used as a broad label. If you are going to define "the left" separately and not tell anyone what the group is defined as, then it's all pretty nonsensical. "Sceptics" and "denialists" are much narrower terms in a discussion about AGW.
2- Impossible to comment since you have provided no definition of "the left" and who you know exactly what every single member of that group thinks.
4- "People who publicly write about politics as Schmidt and Heathers do would be called "the left" by many, probably most, people.
They are evidence that there ARE people who are quite strongly members of the political left who clearly DO place a very high value on good science. At least one of them has said that "deniers" SHOULD be listened to as that is part of science. You appear to simply be defining "the left" as it suits you in to slide away from the truth, which is that left-leaning scientists do NOT all try to stifle debate as you claim "the left" does.
5- A reasonable observer can see easily that you praise pollies from the right, and lump a modern polly from the left with murderous dictators and suspect that you are from the right or a rather militant version of the centre. Your later blanket abuse of "progressives" seems to make it pretty obvious that you are actually biased, but sometimes try to hide it - perhaps even from yourself.
I've explained myself a couple of times, I'm not going through the same thing over and over.
As for 5, you're doing exactly the same thing I got on log jam's case for. If you want to take my comments at him personally, that's your bag baby.
Select to expand quotelog man said..
deniers have to lie.
Denial deniers have to lie too 
Select to expand quoteKamikuza said..Chris 249 said..
1- No, you have not provided any "factual evidence for your generalisations". Any claim that the views of a single poster on a single site is "factual evidence" of the beliefs held by millions of other people is illogical and unscientific; unless of course you've just decided to define "the left" in your own terms and in a way that suits your argument.
The left" is generally used as a broad label. If you are going to define "the left" separately and not tell anyone what the group is defined as, then it's all pretty nonsensical. "Sceptics" and "denialists" are much narrower terms in a discussion about AGW.
2- Impossible to comment since you have provided no definition of "the left" and who you know exactly what every single member of that group thinks.
4- "People who publicly write about politics as Schmidt and Heathers do would be called "the left" by many, probably most, people.
They are evidence that there ARE people who are quite strongly members of the political left who clearly DO place a very high value on good science. At least one of them has said that "deniers" SHOULD be listened to as that is part of science. You appear to simply be defining "the left" as it suits you in to slide away from the truth, which is that left-leaning scientists do NOT all try to stifle debate as you claim "the left" does.
5- A reasonable observer can see easily that you praise pollies from the right, and lump a modern polly from the left with murderous dictators and suspect that you are from the right or a rather militant version of the centre. Your later blanket abuse of "progressives" seems to make it pretty obvious that you are actually biased, but sometimes try to hide it - perhaps even from yourself.
I've explained myself a couple of times, I'm not going through the same thing over and over.
As for 5, you're doing exactly the same thing I got on log jam's case for. If you want to take my comments at him personally, that's your bag baby.
Come on man.....show the courage of your convictions. Grow a couple.
Select to expand quotelog man said..
Come on man.....show the courage of your convictions. Grow a couple.
I spelled it out in crayon several times and you still didn't get it.
Enough for me, thanks.
Select to expand quote
As a matter of interest, why do you believe Dr Sircus's article?
One is reminded of the first "Ship of Fools" from Australia which attempted to land where Ausssie explorer, Mawson, had landed a century ago on Antarctica.
They never got within 100kms of the mainland! While exploring, for about 2 hours, a rocky islet, the ship was entombed in thick ice - the VERY ice the expedition claimed no longer existed. The oaf of a leader stood on deck eyeing the thick ice all around, "See! No ice!!" Spittle drooled from his slack jaw. $15m later, most of the fartless passengers had been helicoptered to safety, leaving the luckless Russian crew to have a huge party with lots of vodka and ICE..........the average ice thickness in Antarctica is 11,000ft, and is growing.
My modelling suggests there is no such thing as climate change.
I have renamed it WEATHER.
The problem is that the human population has quadrupled in my lifetime
Too much stress on the planet, too many people, causing the earth's crust to
distort as they all walk around. We need a serious culling and pronto!.
Select to expand quoteboofta said..
My modelling suggests there is no such thing as climate change.
I have renamed it WEATHER.
The problem is that the human population has quadrupled in my lifetime
Too much stress on the planet, too many people, causing the earth's crust to
distort as they all walk around. We need a serious culling and pronto!.
how about just some education on birth control and some minor cultural tweaks, showing how good 2 or 3 children per family would be. The future problems and environmental stress in india, asia, Africa and south America could be averted. Impacts of climate, food, water and resource shortages would be less and they wouldn't become refugees.
It is an established fact that people who live in well off countries breed less than poor ones. Considerably so to the degree where some countries would have a declining population were it not for immigration.
There are two problems with that.
If the population declines the economy stops growing and goes into recession.
If you bolster the economies of poor countries by say paying a fair price for products or resources then the chappies who make a fortune stealing those things don't get to make as much as they're accustomed to.
We cannot have that can we?
To Chris 249. Talk about a pedant, sir! The FACT is that they did NOT reach the mainland; the ship was badly stuck in thick ice; they needed help from SEVERAL ships and expensive helicopters. Well done! Promote this man!
The ice in Antarctica is growing despite supposed GW. Is 11,000ft thick on average. Melting next Tuesday, eh?
Passed my Bsc in Chemistry in 2 years while flying in the RAFVR. HM the Queen giving me a Permanent Commission in GD(P) the highest paid branch of the Brit armed forces. Flew Meteors ("meatboxes" as the Aussies called them, because they killed so many!)
Answer this you alarmist - the Roman and Medieval Warm Periods a time of PROSPERITY!! Getit? NOT gloom and doom - more food, more exploration, LESS deaths from cold etc. Why should our mild warming be ANY different? Illogical, pal! And, name 2 bad things PRESENTLY (not guff predictions from stupid people) from GW. Disappearing islands? No. More storms. No. More forest fires, eh? 100 times MORE fires in USA in the 30s cf last year. World grain production 2400m tons today; 600m in 1950. About 300m FREE from extra Co2 . Don't want free food? Trees in USA today DOUBLE those of 1900. Bad, eh?......its the Cloud Cover decrease (from less aerosols for nucleation) that is 200 times MORE powerful than CO2 forcing. Go back and get an education.
Select to expand quoteevlPanda said..Kamikuza said..
And yes, you can still agree with the IPCC or the UN or NASA or whatever you like ... and STILL insist that folks like Cook need to do the ****ing science properly.
Cook published. Peers reviewed and criticised it.
The data, how he used it, and the resulting graphs are in question. There is much debate about it.
That's proper science.
"The lefties" pointing out that there are many, many, many other studies and papers out there, and the vast majority of them, be it 90, 95, or 97 percent, still point to man-made global warming is a very fair argument. The data "overwhelmingly" points to man made causes. No, it's not 100%, but that doesn't disprove it. Far from. We don't see "overwhelming" data saying it is not man made.
What I fear, actually, is that Global Warming, as important an issue as it is, is forcing other just as important environmental issues to take a bit of a back seat, while people argue about petty things, like egos.
For instance the very real possibility of ecological collapse, as we wipe out species after species (no food). Or, the vast deforestation that still continues unabated. Or, the other types of pollution. Or, that we're starting to run out of water (no water).
Is man ****ing the environment up? Yes. D'uh.
Actually, man doing well. Our air cleaner, 600 counts in London in 1900, 15 today; Vancouver, BC just 5.
Less aerosols means less cloud, more heat. 200 times the forcing of CO2.
Add the variation in the number of Cosmic Rays caused by variations in the Sun's protective shield. CR also nucleate (forms) clouds. I am the author of "Cosmic Ray induced radio nuclides (like C14) and their uses in Oceanography." Since then, Be10 now used to show the Sun's heat variation - overall just 1% but 20% in some wavelengths. Be very uncommon (used in nuke bombs), so little chance of contamination as with C14.
Gentlemen (and ladies!) we are wasting money and resources........in BC, $20bn spent on "run of the river" alt. energy. Only trouble? Hm? It works mainly during the Spring freshet when dams bursting, so the energy is NEVER used...........have $15m windmill on mountain overlooking the city - it rarely turns. Why? Instead of placing it where it is windy, they wanted to show it off, to be very visible. In its 25 year life will make just $200K, and it sheds bullets of ice on the luckless skiers below. Well done. Wasting money AND dangers too! First prize.
........ and "Ship of Fools" (Mawson replica expedition) caused 3 countries including Australia to cancel their experiments that year. Well done Chris, old boy!
Depo- provera for ALL Afric
Select to expand quoteevlPanda said..Kamikuza said..
And yes, you can still agree with the IPCC or the UN or NASA or whatever you like ... and STILL insist that folks like Cook need to do the ****ing science properly.
Cook published. Peers reviewed and criticised it.
The data, how he used it, and the resulting graphs are in question. There is much debate about it.
That's proper science.
"The lefties" pointing out that there are many, many, many other studies and papers out there, and the vast majority of them, be it 90, 95, or 97 percent, still point to man-made global warming is a very fair argument. The data "overwhelmingly" points to man made causes. No, it's not 100%, but that doesn't disprove it. Far from. We don't see "overwhelming" data saying it is not man made.
What I fear, actually, is that Global Warming, as important an issue as it is, is forcing other just as important environmental issues to take a bit of a back seat, while people argue about petty things, like egos.
For instance the very real possibility of ecological collapse, as we wipe out species after species (no food). Or, the vast deforestation that still continues unabated. Or, the other types of pollution. Or, that we're starting to run out of water (no water).
Is man ****ing the environment up? Yes. D'uh.
Actually, man doing well. Our air cleaner, 600 counts in London in 1900, 15 today; Vancouver, BC just 5.
Less aerosols means less cloud, more heat. 200 times the forcing of CO2.
Add the variation in the number of Cosmic Rays caused by variations in the Sun's protective shield. CR also nucleate (forms) clouds. I am the author of "Cosmic Ray induced radio nuclides (like C14) and their uses in Oceanography." Since then, Be10 now used to show the Sun's heat variation - overall just 1% but 20% in some wavelengths. Be very uncommon (used in nuke bombs), so little chance of contamination as with C14.
Gentlemen (and ladies!) we are wasting money and resources........in BC, $20bn spent on "run of the river" alt. energy. Only trouble? Hm? It works mainly during the Spring freshet when dams bursting, so the energy is NEVER used...........have $15m windmill on mountain overlooking the city - it rarely turns. Why? Instead of placing it where it is windy, they wanted to show it off, to be very visible. In its 25 year life will make just $200K, and it sheds bullets of ice on the luckless skiers below. Well done. Wasting money AND dangers too! First prize.
........ and "Ship of Fools" (Mawson replica expedition) caused 3 countries including Australia to cancel their experiments that year. Well done Chris, old boy!
Depo- provera for ALL Afric
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_deadliest_floods
Amazing how middle age floods are still in the top 10 given our exponential documentation and population growth.
Pretty sure Noah complained about climate change, yet nobody listened...
Bcos we all know CO2 is a blanket...en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lowest_temperature_recorded_on_Earth
Select to expand quoteChris 249 said..kilo54 said..
Not only was Mann a bad mathematician (his technique made a hockey stick of how often you went to the bathroom!), but he used a handful of creosote plants growing at DIFFERENT altitudes, and attempted to say the difference in size was because there was no Medieval Warm Period! (MWP) Ha, ha. Another turd, Briffa, CRU East Anglia, did a study of 16 trees from 250 miles apart - 15 showed extra growth during the MWP but ONE stunted tree did NOT, and so he said the AVERAGE showed no MWP!!! What a titan.
To quote a "sceptic" website; "'When you start to lose an argument, you attack the individual".
I am attacking his maths, his bad science, his frequent law suits. In Briffa's case, refusing to show his sources? Disgraceful! The MWP was Global, but that does not matter. Europe WAS as warm/er cf. today. It WAS a time of prosperity. So, why, clever clogs, is our present mild warming bad? Just does not sense at any level. More food; less starvation; more variety; longer growing season..........in Peace River country, BC, about 110 frost free days today. "And you don't want it to get warmer? Are you barmy?"
Select to expand quotekilo54 said..
To Chris 249. Talk about a pedant, sir! The FACT is that they did NOT reach the mainland; the ship was badly stuck in thick ice; they needed help from SEVERAL ships and expensive helicopters. Well done! Promote this man!
The ice in Antarctica is growing despite supposed GW. Is 11,000ft thick on average. Melting next Tuesday, eh?
Passed my Bsc in Chemistry in 2 years while flying in the RAFVR. HM the Queen giving me a Permanent Commission in GD(P) the highest paid branch of the Brit armed forces. Flew Meteors ("meatboxes" as the Aussies called them, because they killed so many!)
Answer this you alarmist - the Roman and Medieval Warm Periods a time of PROSPERITY!! Getit? NOT gloom and doom - more food, more exploration, LESS deaths from cold etc. Why should our mild warming be ANY different? Illogical, pal! And, name 2 bad things PRESENTLY (not guff predictions from stupid people) from GW. Disappearing islands? No. More storms. No. More forest fires, eh? 100 times MORE fires in USA in the 30s cf last year. World grain production 2400m tons today; 600m in 1950. About 300m FREE from extra Co2 . Don't want free food? Trees in USA today DOUBLE those of 1900. Bad, eh?......its the Cloud Cover decrease (from less aerosols for nucleation) that is 200 times MORE powerful than CO2 forcing. Go back and get an education.
Kilo 249, I'm not a pedant - you are a LIAR. You are dishonest, a trickster, dishonest, falsifier..... how many different ways do you want be to put it?
I'll say again - you are a liar. Or else, you are ignorant or credulous. Your choice. You made a blanket statement that was untrue, either because you were too lazy to check the facts, too stupid to know what was right, or a liar.
Respect to you for flying Meteors (although didn't "Winkle" Brown say they were very easy to fly?) but it is ridiculous to say that because you did well in a bachelors degree, you know more than Nobel prize winners in physics.
Your claims about warming being better are viciously illogical, because they centre on certain parts of the world and don't seem to consider low-lying or hotter areas at all. Even if some areas do better, that is no consolation to those who may suffer.
I have a much better education, in terms of doing well in a highly competitive undergrad course, than you do so your claims that I should get an education are dishonest and stupid. People like Brian Schmidt have vastly better educations than you do and they believe in AGW. It it beyond stupid to claim that as an undergrad in chemistry you know more about AGW than people with higher qualifications who specialise in the related sciences.
On top of all that, if you are educated you should still not lie and you should know the difference between 100km and about 10km. Meanwhile, if you want respect, then you should stop lying.
Select to expand quotekilo54 said..Chris 249 said..kilo54 said..
Not only was Mann a bad mathematician (his technique made a hockey stick of how often you went to the bathroom!), but he used a handful of creosote plants growing at DIFFERENT altitudes, and attempted to say the difference in size was because there was no Medieval Warm Period! (MWP) Ha, ha. Another turd, Briffa, CRU East Anglia, did a study of 16 trees from 250 miles apart - 15 showed extra growth during the MWP but ONE stunted tree did NOT, and so he said the AVERAGE showed no MWP!!! What a titan.
To quote a "sceptic" website; "'When you start to lose an argument, you attack the individual".
I am attacking his maths, his bad science, his frequent law suits. In Briffa's case, refusing to show his sources? Disgraceful! The MWP was Global, but that does not matter. Europe WAS as warm/er cf. today. It WAS a time of prosperity. So, why, clever clogs, is our present mild warming bad? Just does not sense at any level. More food; less starvation; more variety; longer growing season..........in Peace River country, BC, about 110 frost free days today. "And you don't want it to get warmer? Are you barmy?"
I can't believe that anyone can be so conceited or insular as to ignore the many areas of the world that would suffer from extra heat. Weird.
It could be good for Peace River if it warmed up, but where I live, entire towns have run out of drinking water. Fire fighters have no water available; they are fighting the worst early fire season on record with drying hoses. Men over 80, who have lived here for generations, have never heard of such a drought. And you want it to get warmer and drier? Loony.
What a pity, by the way, that someone who claims to be educated cannot discuss such things without being a childish bogan and throwing around stupid lying insults.
Select to expand quoteChris 249 said..kilo54 said..
To Chris 249. Talk about a pedant, sir! The FACT is that they did NOT reach the mainland; the ship was badly stuck in thick ice; they needed help from SEVERAL ships and expensive helicopters. Well done! Promote this man!
The ice in Antarctica is growing despite supposed GW. Is 11,000ft thick on average. Melting next Tuesday, eh?
Passed my Bsc in Chemistry in 2 years while flying in the RAFVR. HM the Queen giving me a Permanent Commission in GD(P) the highest paid branch of the Brit armed forces. Flew Meteors ("meatboxes" as the Aussies called them, because they killed so many!)
Answer this you alarmist - the Roman and Medieval Warm Periods a time of PROSPERITY!! Getit? NOT gloom and doom - more food, more exploration, LESS deaths from cold etc. Why should our mild warming be ANY different? Illogical, pal! And, name 2 bad things PRESENTLY (not guff predictions from stupid people) from GW. Disappearing islands? No. More storms. No. More forest fires, eh? 100 times MORE fires in USA in the 30s cf last year. World grain production 2400m tons today; 600m in 1950. About 300m FREE from extra Co2 . Don't want free food? Trees in USA today DOUBLE those of 1900. Bad, eh?......its the Cloud Cover decrease (from less aerosols for nucleation) that is 200 times MORE powerful than CO2 forcing. Go back and get an education.
Kilo 249, I'm not a pedant - you are a LIAR. You are dishonest, a trickster, dishonest, falsifier..... how many different ways do you want be to put it?
I'll say again - you are a liar. Or else, you are ignorant or credulous. Your choice. You made a blanket statement that was untrue, either because you were too lazy to check the facts, too stupid to know what was right, or a liar.
Respect to you for flying Meteors (although didn't "Winkle" Brown say they were very easy to fly?) but it is ridiculous to say that because you did well in a bachelors degree, you know more than Nobel prize winners in physics.
Your claims about warming being better are viciously illogical, because they centre on certain parts of the world and don't seem to consider low-lying or hotter areas at all. Even if some areas do better, that is no consolation to those who may suffer.
I have a much better education, in terms of doing well in a highly competitive undergrad course, than you do so your claims that I should get an education are dishonest and stupid. People like Brian Schmidt have vastly better educations than you do and they believe in AGW. It it beyond stupid to claim that as an undergrad in chemistry you know more about AGW than people with higher qualifications who specialise in the related sciences.
On top of all that, if you are educated you should still not lie and you should know the difference between 100km and about 10km. Meanwhile, if you want respect, then you should stop lying.
I read that it was 100km. That MAY be a mistake, but certainly NOT a lie. Logic, old boy.
You prat on about $1.5m cost; others say $2.4m, AND "porky pie-lie, how about costing the 3 expeditions that were cancelled 'cos of you and your slack arses?" France, China, Australia not happy with you, and Oz now sending you the invoice I hear......don't get your balls in a knot, that is MY info, wrong tho' it may be.
How do you answer CO2 "saturation"? Being logarithmic. Know what they are? Hm?
And do you think cloud cover affects temp? For all our sakes, read John D. Maclean's PhD, "An audit of HADCRUT4 and a study on the decrease in world cloud cover, 1986 to 2009." He should get the Nobel and may well do so. Australia should be VERY proud of his meticulous work.
John, I salute you.
Your whole attitude is like you have been doing cocaine the night before!! Snappy, cranky, bitchy; avoiding issues; repeating "lies. lies, lies."
And try pulling hard G in a Meteor - "Mayday, mayday, mayday. Fanstop both engines. Unable to get out, will try and put her down."
10+ second throttle lag, but so smooth compared to pistons.
Look, Chis, would rather be friends than enemies.
My schooling cost $500K. (Beaten on my last day. We have won 2 Court cases against the swine that ran the school.) i am fairly bright, did fast 2 year course at Uni..........."CO2 is only a very MINOR player in GW. HALF of the claimed temp rise JUST from changing the paint from whitewash to modern paints. 0.7F alone diff. NOAA so busy changing temps, BUT NOT smart enough to change 'number of days over 100F etc'
Why so DEVOTED to CO2? Wot made the Roman and Medieval Warm periods so warm? (Ah, yes. Nissan factory in the Colosseum! Hm?)
You MUST have a vested interest, no?
Select to expand quotekilo54 said..Chris 249 said..kilo54 said..
To Chris 249. Talk about a pedant, sir! The FACT is that they did NOT reach the mainland; the ship was badly stuck in thick ice; they needed help from SEVERAL ships and expensive helicopters. Well done! Promote this man!
The ice in Antarctica is growing despite supposed GW. Is 11,000ft thick on average. Melting next Tuesday, eh?
Passed my Bsc in Chemistry in 2 years while flying in the RAFVR. HM the Queen giving me a Permanent Commission in GD(P) the highest paid branch of the Brit armed forces. Flew Meteors ("meatboxes" as the Aussies called them, because they killed so many!)
Answer this you alarmist - the Roman and Medieval Warm Periods a time of PROSPERITY!! Getit? NOT gloom and doom - more food, more exploration, LESS deaths from cold etc. Why should our mild warming be ANY different? Illogical, pal! And, name 2 bad things PRESENTLY (not guff predictions from stupid people) from GW. Disappearing islands? No. More storms. No. More forest fires, eh? 100 times MORE fires in USA in the 30s cf last year. World grain production 2400m tons today; 600m in 1950. About 300m FREE from extra Co2 . Don't want free food? Trees in USA today DOUBLE those of 1900. Bad, eh?......its the Cloud Cover decrease (from less aerosols for nucleation) that is 200 times MORE powerful than CO2 forcing. Go back and get an education.
Kilo 249, I'm not a pedant - you are a LIAR. You are dishonest, a trickster, dishonest, falsifier..... how many different ways do you want be to put it?
I'll say again - you are a liar. Or else, you are ignorant or credulous. Your choice. You made a blanket statement that was untrue, either because you were too lazy to check the facts, too stupid to know what was right, or a liar.
Respect to you for flying Meteors (although didn't "Winkle" Brown say they were very easy to fly?) but it is ridiculous to say that because you did well in a bachelors degree, you know more than Nobel prize winners in physics.
Your claims about warming being better are viciously illogical, because they centre on certain parts of the world and don't seem to consider low-lying or hotter areas at all. Even if some areas do better, that is no consolation to those who may suffer.
I have a much better education, in terms of doing well in a highly competitive undergrad course, than you do so your claims that I should get an education are dishonest and stupid. People like Brian Schmidt have vastly better educations than you do and they believe in AGW. It it beyond stupid to claim that as an undergrad in chemistry you know more about AGW than people with higher qualifications who specialise in the related sciences.
On top of all that, if you are educated you should still not lie and you should know the difference between 100km and about 10km. Meanwhile, if you want respect, then you should stop lying.
I read that it was 100km. That MAY be a mistake, but certainly NOT a lie. Logic, old boy.
You prat on about $1.5m cost; others say $2.4m, AND "porky pie-lie, how about costing the 3 expeditions that were cancelled 'cos of you and your slack arses?" France, China, Australia not happy with you, and Oz now sending you the invoice I hear......don't get your balls in a knot, that is MY info, wrong tho' it may be.
How do you answer CO2 "saturation"? Being logarithmic. Know what they are? Hm?
And do you think cloud cover affects temp? For all our sakes, read John D. Maclean's PhD, "An audit of HADCRUT4 and a study on the decrease in world cloud cover, 1986 to 2009." He should get the Nobel and may well do so. Australia should be VERY proud of his meticulous work.
John, I salute you.
Your whole attitude is like you have been doing cocaine the night before!! Snappy, cranky, bitchy; avoiding issues; repeating "lies. lies, lies."
And try pulling hard G in a Meteor - "Mayday, mayday, mayday. Fanstop both engines. Unable to get out, will try and put her down."
10+ second throttle lag, but so smooth compared to pistons.
Look, Chis, would rather be friends than enemies.
My schooling cost $500K. (Beaten on my last day. We have won 2 Court cases against the swine that ran the school.) i am fairly bright, did fast 2 year course at Uni..........."CO2 is only a very MINOR player in GW. HALF of the claimed temp rise JUST from changing the paint from whitewash to modern paints. 0.7F alone diff. NOAA so busy changing temps, BUT NOT smart enough to change 'number of days over 100F etc'
Why so DEVOTED to CO2? Wot made the Roman and Medieval Warm periods so warm? (Ah, yes. Nissan factory in the Colosseum! Hm?)
You MUST have a vested interest, no?
Kilo, do you have fruit loops in the UK?
Select to expand quotekilo54 said..Chris 249 said..kilo54 said..
To Chris 249. Talk about a pedant, sir! The FACT is that they did NOT reach the mainland; the ship was badly stuck in thick ice; they needed help from SEVERAL ships and expensive helicopters. Well done! Promote this man!
The ice in Antarctica is growing despite supposed GW. Is 11,000ft thick on average. Melting next Tuesday, eh?
Passed my Bsc in Chemistry in 2 years while flying in the RAFVR. HM the Queen giving me a Permanent Commission in GD(P) the highest paid branch of the Brit armed forces. Flew Meteors ("meatboxes" as the Aussies called them, because they killed so many!)
Answer this you alarmist - the Roman and Medieval Warm Periods a time of PROSPERITY!! Getit? NOT gloom and doom - more food, more exploration, LESS deaths from cold etc. Why should our mild warming be ANY different? Illogical, pal! And, name 2 bad things PRESENTLY (not guff predictions from stupid people) from GW. Disappearing islands? No. More storms. No. More forest fires, eh? 100 times MORE fires in USA in the 30s cf last year. World grain production 2400m tons today; 600m in 1950. About 300m FREE from extra Co2 . Don't want free food? Trees in USA today DOUBLE those of 1900. Bad, eh?......its the Cloud Cover decrease (from less aerosols for nucleation) that is 200 times MORE powerful than CO2 forcing. Go back and get an education.
Kilo 249, I'm not a pedant - you are a LIAR. You are dishonest, a trickster, dishonest, falsifier..... how many different ways do you want be to put it?
I'll say again - you are a liar. Or else, you are ignorant or credulous. Your choice. You made a blanket statement that was untrue, either because you were too lazy to check the facts, too stupid to know what was right, or a liar.
Respect to you for flying Meteors (although didn't "Winkle" Brown say they were very easy to fly?) but it is ridiculous to say that because you did well in a bachelors degree, you know more than Nobel prize winners in physics.
Your claims about warming being better are viciously illogical, because they centre on certain parts of the world and don't seem to consider low-lying or hotter areas at all. Even if some areas do better, that is no consolation to those who may suffer.
I have a much better education, in terms of doing well in a highly competitive undergrad course, than you do so your claims that I should get an education are dishonest and stupid. People like Brian Schmidt have vastly better educations than you do and they believe in AGW. It it beyond stupid to claim that as an undergrad in chemistry you know more about AGW than people with higher qualifications who specialise in the related sciences.
On top of all that, if you are educated you should still not lie and you should know the difference between 100km and about 10km. Meanwhile, if you want respect, then you should stop lying.
I read that it was 100km. That MAY be a mistake, but certainly NOT a lie. Logic, old boy.
You prat on about $1.5m cost; others say $2.4m, AND "porky pie-lie, how about costing the 3 expeditions that were cancelled 'cos of you and your slack arses?" France, China, Australia not happy with you, and Oz now sending you the invoice I hear......don't get your balls in a knot, that is MY info, wrong tho' it may be.
How do you answer CO2 "saturation"? Being logarithmic. Know what they are? Hm?
And do you think cloud cover affects temp? For all our sakes, read John D. Maclean's PhD, "An audit of HADCRUT4 and a study on the decrease in world cloud cover, 1986 to 2009." He should get the Nobel and may well do so. Australia should be VERY proud of his meticulous work.
John, I salute you.
Your whole attitude is like you have been doing cocaine the night before!! Snappy, cranky, bitchy; avoiding issues; repeating "lies. lies, lies."
And try pulling hard G in a Meteor - "Mayday, mayday, mayday. Fanstop both engines. Unable to get out, will try and put her down."
10+ second throttle lag, but so smooth compared to pistons.
Look, Chis, would rather be friends than enemies.
My schooling cost $500K. (Beaten on my last day. We have won 2 Court cases against the swine that ran the school.) i am fairly bright, did fast 2 year course at Uni..........."CO2 is only a very MINOR player in GW. HALF of the claimed temp rise JUST from changing the paint from whitewash to modern paints. 0.7F alone diff. NOAA so busy changing temps, BUT NOT smart enough to change 'number of days over 100F etc'
Why so DEVOTED to CO2? Wot made the Roman and Medieval Warm periods so warm? (Ah, yes. Nissan factory in the Colosseum! Hm?)
You MUST have a vested interest, no?
I'm not avoiding the issue - I'm demonstrating that your claims are false and therefore your other claims are equally likely to be false. And for heaven's sake - how in the name of honesty can you write a post that speaks of "oaf of a leader .........Spittle drooled from his slack jaw. ....... fartless passengers" and then complain about my rhetoric? If you want measured, reasoned discussions then don't start off with an insulting rant.
I said in my fourth and fifth lines that you may have been careless or ignorant, rather than a liar. That is hardly any better, considering how unethical it is to abuse someone based on ignorance or carelessness. Here's a tip- don't insult people carelessly or dishonestly.
If you "would rather be friends than enemies" then admit your post was as at the very least careless. The ship was NOT 100km from the continent or anything like it. The ship was NOT stuck in "the VERY ice the expedition claimed no longer existed"; it didn't claim no ice existed, nor was it studying the type of ice it became stuck in. Nor did the recovery cost $15 million.
You go on about your education but two years at uni doing another subject does not qualify you to judge Nobel prize winners and specialists in the field related to AGW. And since you have proven that some of your "facts" are out by a factor of ten, you have little credibility.MacLean's PhD, it has been pointed out, infers that clouds are a forcing mechanism in global warming and not a symptom.
No, I have no vested interest. Yes, there have been previous warming and cooling cycles as in the Roman era, but the current warming cycle is apparently driven by different factors.
I note that you have no response to the fact that your praise of global warming ignores the problems it can cause in hotter areas and low-lying areas, and that you only appear to consider the places where Europeans live when considering its effects.
