T Nation

Ice-Bound Ship Was On Global Warming Mission


Frozen Out:
98% of NEWS Stories IGNORE That Ice-bound Ship Was On Global Warming Mission

A group of climate change scientists were rescued by helicopter Jan. 2, after being stranded in the ice since Christmas morning. But the majority of the broadcast networks’ reports about the ice-locked climate researchers NEVER mentioned climate change.

The Russian ship, Akademic Shokalskiy, was stranded in the ice while on a climate change research expedition, yet nearly 98 percent of network news reports about the stranded researchers failed to mention their mission at all. Forty out of 41 stories (97.5 percent) on the network morning and evening news shows since Dec. 25 failed to mention climate change had anything to do with the expedition.

In fact, rather than point out the mission was to find evidence of climate change, the networks often referred to the stranded people as “passengers,” “trackers” and even “tourists,” without a word about climate change or global warming.

FAUX NEWS DOES IT AGAIN. The “real” FAUX NEWS comes from the multitude of liars in liberal owned/edited magazines, newspapers and tv. it’s the only way to intimidate and force socialism down our throats.

in other news, milk prices will rise this year with the expiration of dairy subsidies.

What does this have to do with drinking a gallon of milk a day?

yawn

[quote]ZJStrope wrote:
yawn[/quote]

It would be a lot more interesting if he put up a video of Megan Kelley reporting the story, huh?
Gawd I love that woman.

[quote]on edge wrote:

[quote]ZJStrope wrote:
yawn[/quote]

It would be a lot more interesting if he put up a video of Megan Kelley reporting the story, huh?
Gawd I love that woman.[/quote]

You mean…this Megyn Kelly?

I’m probably getting trolled here (but then again, I think that sadly, this is not a troll)

For those of you who are scientifically uneducated the term “global warming” is misleading. They were not on a “global warming” mission, they were on a CLIMATE CHANGE mission. Earth’s atmosphere is warming, and one of the results of this is WEATHER EXTREMES. This means droughts AND floods, and this means freezing cold temperatures and boiling hot temperatures.

Consider this: If “global warming” is not real, and we listen to the liberals, everyone would be conserving energy and driving a Prius, but if we listen to the conspiracy theorists who don’t bother to do some actual research from a valid source and “global warming” turns out to be an actual thing (hint hint: it already is), we’ll be destroying the planet.

Don’t talk about climate change until you know what it means. Before you reply, please do some research so you won’t sound ridiculous.

Stay mad.

[quote]The Anchor wrote:
I’m probably getting trolled here (but then again, I think that sadly, this is not a troll)

For those of you who are scientifically uneducated the term “global warming” is misleading. They were not on a “global warming” mission, they were on a CLIMATE CHANGE mission. Earth’s atmosphere is warming, and one of the results of this is WEATHER EXTREMES. This means droughts AND floods, and this means freezing cold temperatures and boiling hot temperatures.

Consider this: If “global warming” is not real, and we listen to the liberals, everyone would be conserving energy and driving a Prius, but if we listen to the conspiracy theorists who don’t bother to do some actual research from a valid source and “global warming” turns out to be an actual thing (hint hint: it already is), we’ll be destroying the planet.

Don’t talk about climate change until you know what it means. Before you reply, please do some research so you won’t sound ridiculous.

Stay mad.

[/quote]

I love the bravado that humans have, to think they can accurately predict the climate and weather with records spanning a few hundred years at best.

This whole notion is religious fanaticism. Weather is too hot, global warming. Weather is too cold, global warming.

The truth is, we do not fully understand all the concepts involved with how nature deals with the climate and it’s changes.

I call this comedic irony, when a vessel filled with scientists studying the effects of global warming gets stuck in more ice than they could have ever predicted. Sorry, but that is some truly funny shit.

[quote]MaximusB wrote:

[quote]The Anchor wrote:
I’m probably getting trolled here (but then again, I think that sadly, this is not a troll)

For those of you who are scientifically uneducated the term “global warming” is misleading. They were not on a “global warming” mission, they were on a CLIMATE CHANGE mission. Earth’s atmosphere is warming, and one of the results of this is WEATHER EXTREMES. This means droughts AND floods, and this means freezing cold temperatures and boiling hot temperatures.

Consider this: If “global warming” is not real, and we listen to the liberals, everyone would be conserving energy and driving a Prius, but if we listen to the conspiracy theorists who don’t bother to do some actual research from a valid source and “global warming” turns out to be an actual thing (hint hint: it already is), we’ll be destroying the planet.

Don’t talk about climate change until you know what it means. Before you reply, please do some research so you won’t sound ridiculous.

Stay mad.

[/quote]

I love the bravado that humans have, to think they can accurately predict the climate and weather with records spanning a few hundred years at best.

This whole notion is religious fanaticism. Weather is too hot, global warming. Weather is too cold, global warming.

The truth is, we do not fully understand all the concepts involved with how nature deals with the climate and it’s changes.

I call this comedic irony, when a vessel filled with scientists studying the effects of global warming gets stuck in more ice than they could have ever predicted. Sorry, but that is some truly funny shit. [/quote]

How do you suggest we go about trying to understand climate without actually gathering information and studying it? Just to keep the conspiracy theorists happy

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]MaximusB wrote:

[quote]The Anchor wrote:
I’m probably getting trolled here (but then again, I think that sadly, this is not a troll)

For those of you who are scientifically uneducated the term “global warming” is misleading. They were not on a “global warming” mission, they were on a CLIMATE CHANGE mission. Earth’s atmosphere is warming, and one of the results of this is WEATHER EXTREMES. This means droughts AND floods, and this means freezing cold temperatures and boiling hot temperatures.

Consider this: If “global warming” is not real, and we listen to the liberals, everyone would be conserving energy and driving a Prius, but if we listen to the conspiracy theorists who don’t bother to do some actual research from a valid source and “global warming” turns out to be an actual thing (hint hint: it already is), we’ll be destroying the planet.

Don’t talk about climate change until you know what it means. Before you reply, please do some research so you won’t sound ridiculous.

Stay mad.

[/quote]

I love the bravado that humans have, to think they can accurately predict the climate and weather with records spanning a few hundred years at best.

This whole notion is religious fanaticism. Weather is too hot, global warming. Weather is too cold, global warming.

The truth is, we do not fully understand all the concepts involved with how nature deals with the climate and it’s changes.

I call this comedic irony, when a vessel filled with scientists studying the effects of global warming gets stuck in more ice than they could have ever predicted. Sorry, but that is some truly funny shit. [/quote]

How do you suggest we go about trying to understand climate without actually gathering information and studying it? Just to keep the conspiracy theorists happy[/quote]
He obviously is not that bright since he confused global warming with climate change and, he doesn’t realize we have ways of knowing what the weather was like thousands of years ago. I mean, how do we know there was something called an Ice Age?

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

How do you suggest we go about trying to understand climate without actually gathering information and studying it? [/quote]

We should continue to do what we are doing, but we need to tone down the arrogance of mankind’s “footprint” and this notion that we suddenly actually understand more than we really do.

We don’t know shit, we have an awful lot to learn. Not being an alarmist, while not being totally insensitive to the possibility is a good place for most people to be.

I live fairly “green”. I drive high gas mileage vehicle, recycle, cut up the plastic bags and rings, buy the hippy brand housecleaners and try natural cleaners like vinegar etc… But the last thing I’m going to do is run around and freak out, expect the government to tax our “footprint” or start spewing hate and dat ad hom against people that are skeptical.

One of my biggest takeaways is I have yet to see an Al Gore supporter speak about or to someone skeptical (or someone even in denial) about the whatever the flavor of the day name for it is WITHOUT dat ad hom…

When you see this, over and over and over, again and again, from so many people, it starts to make you wonder if they really have it all figured out, when all they ever do is call someone names for thinking differently.

I concur CB. I think everyone should “do their part” but Chicken Little should stay in the hen house for a bit.

[quote]The Anchor wrote:
the term “global warming” is misleading. They were not on a “global warming” mission, they were on a CLIMATE CHANGE mission. Earth’s atmosphere is warming, and one of the results of this is WEATHER EXTREMES. This means droughts AND floods, and this means freezing cold temperatures and boiling hot temperatures.

[/quote]

So basically, the model is “our theory encompasses absolutely every possible weather related scenario, and given the nature of the issue, we can never predict what could possibly happen.”

hmm…

Take out “weather related” and have that statement being made by a religious person and my would those tables turn, lol.

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]MaximusB wrote:

[quote]The Anchor wrote:
I’m probably getting trolled here (but then again, I think that sadly, this is not a troll)

For those of you who are scientifically uneducated the term “global warming” is misleading. They were not on a “global warming” mission, they were on a CLIMATE CHANGE mission. Earth’s atmosphere is warming, and one of the results of this is WEATHER EXTREMES. This means droughts AND floods, and this means freezing cold temperatures and boiling hot temperatures.

Consider this: If “global warming” is not real, and we listen to the liberals, everyone would be conserving energy and driving a Prius, but if we listen to the conspiracy theorists who don’t bother to do some actual research from a valid source and “global warming” turns out to be an actual thing (hint hint: it already is), we’ll be destroying the planet.

Don’t talk about climate change until you know what it means. Before you reply, please do some research so you won’t sound ridiculous.

Stay mad.

[/quote]

I love the bravado that humans have, to think they can accurately predict the climate and weather with records spanning a few hundred years at best.

This whole notion is religious fanaticism. Weather is too hot, global warming. Weather is too cold, global warming.

The truth is, we do not fully understand all the concepts involved with how nature deals with the climate and it’s changes.

I call this comedic irony, when a vessel filled with scientists studying the effects of global warming gets stuck in more ice than they could have ever predicted. Sorry, but that is some truly funny shit. [/quote]

How do you suggest we go about trying to understand climate without actually gathering information and studying it? Just to keep the conspiracy theorists happy[/quote]
He obviously is not that bright since he confused global warming with climate change and, he doesn’t realize we have ways of knowing what the weather was like thousands of years ago. I mean, how do we know there was something called an Ice Age? [/quote]

The planet is Billions of years old, which makes even thousands of years of data a moot suggestion.

The term “Climate Change” came after “Global Warming” when the data did not support the original theory. Give the bullshit argument a new name, so long as it keeps funding coming.

You have no idea, nor does anyone else, about how or why the Earth’s environment changes. Is it due to human activity ? No one knows, but I’m sure plenty of people on the East Coast wouldn’t mind a little Global Warming right about now.

[quote]MaximusB wrote:

The term “Climate Change” came after “Global Warming” when the data did not support the original theory. Give the bullshit argument a new name, so long as it keeps funding coming.

[/quote]

Wasn’t the Doomsday created by man in the 1970’s a new IceAge?

And pretty sure people have been crying about how overpopulation will kill us all real, real soon for about 3-4 trillion additional people now…

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

How do you suggest we go about trying to understand climate without actually gathering information and studying it? [/quote]

We should continue to do what we are doing, but we need to tone down the arrogance of mankind’s “footprint” and this notion that we suddenly actually understand more than we really do.

We don’t know shit, we have an awful lot to learn. Not being an alarmist, while not being totally insensitive to the possibility is a good place for most people to be.

I live fairly “green”. I drive high gas mileage vehicle, recycle, cut up the plastic bags and rings, buy the hippy brand housecleaners and try natural cleaners like vinegar etc… But the last thing I’m going to do is run around and freak out, expect the government to tax our “footprint” or start spewing hate and dat ad hom against people that are skeptical. [/quote]

If you want an example of how ridiculous this is, take a look at this assessment of the CA High Speed Rail construction:

“If we assume that all alternatives and the high-speed rail are consistently operating at medium occupancies, it will take 70 years or more for the train to make up for the greenhouse gases used in its manufacture.”

http://alumni.stanford.edu/get/page/magazine/article/?article_id=28547

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]MaximusB wrote:

The term “Climate Change” came after “Global Warming” when the data did not support the original theory. Give the bullshit argument a new name, so long as it keeps funding coming.

[/quote]

Wasn’t the Doomsday created by man in the 1970’s a new IceAge?

And pretty sure people have been crying about how overpopulation will kill us all real, real soon for about 3-4 trillion additional people now…[/quote]

trillion?

[quote]xXSeraphimXx wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]MaximusB wrote:

The term “Climate Change” came after “Global Warming” when the data did not support the original theory. Give the bullshit argument a new name, so long as it keeps funding coming.

[/quote]

Wasn’t the Doomsday created by man in the 1970’s a new IceAge?

And pretty sure people have been crying about how overpopulation will kill us all real, real soon for about 3-4 trillion additional people now…[/quote]

trillion?
[/quote]

hyperbole detector?

[quote]MaximusB wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]MaximusB wrote:

[quote]The Anchor wrote:
I’m probably getting trolled here (but then again, I think that sadly, this is not a troll)

For those of you who are scientifically uneducated the term “global warming” is misleading. They were not on a “global warming” mission, they were on a CLIMATE CHANGE mission. Earth’s atmosphere is warming, and one of the results of this is WEATHER EXTREMES. This means droughts AND floods, and this means freezing cold temperatures and boiling hot temperatures.

Consider this: If “global warming” is not real, and we listen to the liberals, everyone would be conserving energy and driving a Prius, but if we listen to the conspiracy theorists who don’t bother to do some actual research from a valid source and “global warming” turns out to be an actual thing (hint hint: it already is), we’ll be destroying the planet.

Don’t talk about climate change until you know what it means. Before you reply, please do some research so you won’t sound ridiculous.

Stay mad.

[/quote]

I love the bravado that humans have, to think they can accurately predict the climate and weather with records spanning a few hundred years at best.

This whole notion is religious fanaticism. Weather is too hot, global warming. Weather is too cold, global warming.

The truth is, we do not fully understand all the concepts involved with how nature deals with the climate and it’s changes.

I call this comedic irony, when a vessel filled with scientists studying the effects of global warming gets stuck in more ice than they could have ever predicted. Sorry, but that is some truly funny shit. [/quote]

How do you suggest we go about trying to understand climate without actually gathering information and studying it? Just to keep the conspiracy theorists happy[/quote]
He obviously is not that bright since he confused global warming with climate change and, he doesn’t realize we have ways of knowing what the weather was like thousands of years ago. I mean, how do we know there was something called an Ice Age? [/quote]

The planet is Billions of years old, which makes even thousands of years of data a moot suggestion.

The term “Climate Change” came after “Global Warming” when the data did not support the original theory. Give the bullshit argument a new name, so long as it keeps funding coming.

You have no idea, nor does anyone else, about how or why the Earth’s environment changes. Is it due to human activity ? No one knows, but I’m sure plenty of people on the East Coast wouldn’t mind a little Global Warming right about now. [/quote]

Speak for yourself. Just because you don’t understand it doesn’t mean everyone else is just as misinformed.

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

How do you suggest we go about trying to understand climate without actually gathering information and studying it? [/quote]

We should continue to do what we are doing, but we need to tone down the arrogance of mankind’s “footprint” and this notion that we suddenly actually understand more than we really do.

We don’t know shit, we have an awful lot to learn. Not being an alarmist, while not being totally insensitive to the possibility is a good place for most people to be.

I live fairly “green”. I drive high gas mileage vehicle, recycle, cut up the plastic bags and rings, buy the hippy brand housecleaners and try natural cleaners like vinegar etc… But the last thing I’m going to do is run around and freak out, expect the government to tax our “footprint” or start spewing hate and dat ad hom against people that are skeptical. [/quote]

I agree but was mostly trying to point out this goes both ways. For every green liberal hippy there is a conservativedog who draws a conclusion in the opposite direction based on one instance of information gathering such as this one, or if it snows in late march.