T Nation

More Global Warming Crap!

(Read the last sentence carefully)

Frostbite ends Bancroft-Arnesen trek
By PATRICK CONDON, Associated Press Writer Mon Mar 12, 5:28 PM ET

MINNEAPOLIS - A North Pole expedition meant to bring attention to global warming was called off after one of the explorers got frostbite. The explorers, Ann Bancroft and Liv Arnesen, on Saturday called off what was intended to be a 530-mile trek across the Arctic Ocean after Arnesen suffered frostbite in three of her toes, and extreme cold temperatures drained the batteries in some of their electronic equipment.

ADVERTISEMENT

“Ann said losing toes and going forward at all costs was never part of the journey,” said Ann Atwood, who helped organize the expedition.

On Monday, the pair was at Canada’s Ward Hunt Island, awaiting a plane to take them to Resolute, Canada, where they were to return to Minneapolis later this week.

Bancroft, 51, became the first woman to cross the North Pole on a 1986 expedition. She and Arnesen, 53, of Oslo, Norway, were the first women to ski across Antarctica in 2001.

But the latest trek got off to a bad start. The day they set off from Ward Hunt Island, a plane landing near the women hit their gear, punching a hole in Bancroft’s sled and damaging one of Arnesen’s snowshoes.

They repaired the snowshoe with binding from a ski, but Atwood said the patch job created pressure on Arnesen’s left foot, which led to blisters that then turned into frostbite.

Then there was the cold ? quite a bit colder, Atwood said, then Bancroft and Arnesen had expected. One night they measured the temperature inside their tent at 58 degrees below zero, and outside temperatures were exceeding 100 below zero at times, Atwood said.

“My first reaction when they called to say there were calling it off was that they just sounded really, really cold,” Atwood said.

She said Bancroft and Arnesen were applying hot water bottles to Arnesen’s foot every night, but had to wake up periodically because the bottles froze.

The explorers had planned to call in regular updates to school groups by satellite phone, and had planned online posts with photographic evidence of global warming. In contrast to Bancroft’s 1986 trek across the Arctic with fellow Minnesota explorer Will Steger, this time she and Arnesen were prepared to don body suits and swim through areas where polar ice has melted.

Atwood said there was some irony that a trip to call attention to global warming was scuttled in part by extreme cold temperatures.

“They were experiencing temperatures that weren’t expected with global warming,” Atwood said. “But one of the things we see with global warming is unpredictability.”


What kind of retard post was that?

These people are so phony.

Why would they emit all that CO2 to fly up there?

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
These people are so phony.

Why would they emit all that CO2 to fly up there?[/quote]

This has got to be the lamest argument against global warming activism. Don’t get me wrong. I think Global Warming is bullshit. Climate change is real enough, but as far as being caused by man, jury is still out. At best, we aren’t “helping”(whatever that means) as much as we could be, but the Earth is going to do its thing regardless of our involvement, we are ants.

But, despite that, people still feel the need to say “oh, they fly around emitting CO2, those hypocrites” as if that somehow a) makes them hypocrites or b) invalidates their argument.

It is a bottom-of-the-barrel snipe that demonstrates intellectual dishonesty and laziness.

Try this one on for size. Fighting a war for peace. It happens, has happened, and will happen again. I cannot believe all those soldiers are killing people to create peace, those hypocrites.

How do you accept a soldier’s job to destroy with their task of creating peace(which they can and do accomplish)?

If someone is speaking against global warming, and they have all the information, facts, science, and motivational speaking on their side. Flying around and emitting CO2, does not invalidate any of that. Neither does it make them hypocrites, when their message, wait for it, is bigger than they are.

Is a weight trainer on a bulk a hypocrite for eating a salad? or for eating ice cream? despite gains?

There are many ways to discredit Global Warming activism, and many ways to poke holes in the theories, why do you have to scrape for the weakest of them?

[quote]vroom wrote:
What kind of retard post was that?[/quote]

You still here?

If you don’t see the irony I cannot help you.

Look, it’s been said before and I’ll say it again. If you don’t like a thread, don’t post in it and keep it going.

Easy enough for Vroom?

[quote]Malevolence wrote:
There are many ways to discredit Global Warming activism, and many ways to poke holes in the theories, why do you have to scrape for the weakest of them?

[/quote]

Argumentum ad nauseam

Wow, it’s cold in the Arctic Circle in Winter. Global warming must be a myth.

Derek you are a tool and certainly not a scientist. Leave the analysis to experts who stake their credibility on the science.

[quote]Malevolence wrote:
But, despite that, people still feel the need to say “oh, they fly around emitting CO2, those hypocrites” as if that somehow a) makes them hypocrites or b) invalidates their argument.

It is a bottom-of-the-barrel snipe that demonstrates intellectual dishonesty and laziness.
[/quote]

And yet it’s perfectly logical when “they” condemn us for our wasteful ways when “they” are equally guilty and do nothing (and are let off the hook because they “care”) .

It’s as logical as a screaming, angry vegetarian eating meat. Or a PETA guy wearing shoes with leather uppers. Or members of Earth Liberation Front burning a lot full of SUVs (LOT’S of poisonous black smoke by the way) in protest to high emmisions output.

It’s idiocy at it’s worst. Say one thing and do another but it’s OK because he “cares”.

[quote]derek wrote:
vroom wrote:
What kind of retard post was that?

You still here?

If you don’t see the irony I cannot help you.

Look, it’s been said before and I’ll say it again. If you don’t like a thread, don’t post in it and keep it going.

Easy enough for Vroom?
[/quote]

Right, is that filed under “you don’t like the way the country is run, then leave” or maybe you put it next to “you don’t like the way your body looks, kill yourself”.

You sure you’re not liberal?

[quote]derek wrote:
[/quote]

You’ve been on quite a roll lately!!!

I’ve said it before: global warming is like religion, I don’t know and neither do you.

However, it does amuse me when global warming conferences and trips are cancelled due to extreme cold.

Keep up the strong posting,

JeffR

[quote]lIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Malevolence wrote:
There are many ways to discredit Global Warming activism, and many ways to poke holes in the theories, why do you have to scrape for the weakest of them?

Argumentum ad nauseam

Wow, it’s cold in the Arctic Circle in Winter. Global warming must be a myth.

Derek you are a tool and certainly not a scientist. Leave the analysis to experts who stake their credibility on the science.[/quote]

Remind me when a warm summer wasn’t used as “proof” of global warming?

Answer: Never.

JeffR

[quote]Malevolence wrote:
Right, is that filed under “you don’t like the way the country is run, then leave” or maybe you put it next to “you don’t like the way your body looks, kill yourself”.

You sure you’re not liberal?

[/quote]

I don’t see how not posting in a thread you think is “retarded” is equal to leaving one’s country or killing oneself but if you feel the need to be dramatic, so will I (I think).

[quote]JeffR wrote:
Remind me when a warm summer wasn’t used as “proof” of global warming?

Answer: Never.

[/quote]

If you want to wax analytic “I can be your huckleberry.”

How many data points are you making your decision on? It takes more data than a few decades of summer temperatures to determine this.

I am in the undecided camp on this one while I certainly believe that humans are changing something. How can we not be? I don’t see polar bears burning fossil fuels faster than the carbon can be reabsorbed back into the earth.

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

Wow, it’s cold in the Arctic Circle in Winter. Global warming must be a myth.

Derek you are a tool and certainly not a scientist. Leave the analysis to experts who stake their credibility on the science.[/quote]

I’m not a scientist, you guessed correctly. And niether are the tools (great name!) that figured out from the 60’s to the 80’s that global COOLING was going to ruin us.

And watch out everybody, now it’s global WARMING. Whatever!

I’m very pleased to see you calling me names though, as opposed to rebutting the issue. Who’s the tool again?

[quote]Malevolence wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
These people are so phony.

Why would they emit all that CO2 to fly up there?

This has got to be the lamest argument against global warming activism. Don’t get me wrong. I think Global Warming is bullshit. Climate change is real enough, but as far as being caused by man, jury is still out. At best, we aren’t “helping”(whatever that means) as much as we could be, but the Earth is going to do its thing regardless of our involvement, we are ants.

But, despite that, people still feel the need to say “oh, they fly around emitting CO2, those hypocrites” as if that somehow a) makes them hypocrites or b) invalidates their argument.

It is a bottom-of-the-barrel snipe that demonstrates intellectual dishonesty and laziness.

[/quote]

Bullshit. It is the truth. They want to take a vacation and enjoy themselves yet they don’t want others to enjoy the same opportunities.

Flying and then hiking to the north pole does nothing to raise awareness of global warming. People are already aware of it.

They should scale back their lifestyle or ride bicycles across country. They should not be making useless trips on an airplane.

If Al Gore hiked across the country I would take him more seriously but he jets around the world and parties with Hollywood types but tells me I am not allowed to burn gas?

Do I dump raw sewage into the river to raise awareness of water pollution?

[quote]lIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
JeffR wrote:
Remind me when a warm summer wasn’t used as “proof” of global warming?

Answer: Never.

If you want to wax analytic “I can be your huckleberry.”

How many data points are you making your decision on? It takes more data than a few decades of summer temperatures to determine this.

I am in the undecided camp on this one while I certainly believe that humans are changing something. How can we not be? I don’t see polar bears burning fossil fuels faster than the carbon can be reabsorbed back into the earth.[/quote]

“You go to hell, lunger.” (You’ve surprised me with your taste in movies. I expected you to quote something like little miss sunshine.)

I’m actually not making an argument one way or the other. I’m pointing out the ridiculous tendency for foaming at the mouth liberals to pronounce global warming a reality after every heat wave. What happens during artic chills/conferences closed?

Silence. Worse I’ve seen them actually postulate that global warming leads to the ice shelf melting, which lowers the ocean’s temperature, which THEN leads to the cold waves.

Manipulating the facts to suit the theory.

JeffR

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Malevolence wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
These people are so phony.

Why would they emit all that CO2 to fly up there?

This has got to be the lamest argument against global warming activism. Don’t get me wrong. I think Global Warming is bullshit. Climate change is real enough, but as far as being caused by man, jury is still out. At best, we aren’t “helping”(whatever that means) as much as we could be, but the Earth is going to do its thing regardless of our involvement, we are ants.

But, despite that, people still feel the need to say “oh, they fly around emitting CO2, those hypocrites” as if that somehow a) makes them hypocrites or b) invalidates their argument.

It is a bottom-of-the-barrel snipe that demonstrates intellectual dishonesty and laziness.

Bullshit. It is the truth. They want to take a vacation and enjoy themselves yet they don’t want others to enjoy the same opportunities.

Flying and then hiking to the north pole does nothing to raise awareness of global warming. People are already aware of it.

They should scale back their lifestyle or ride bicycles across country. They should not be making useless trips on an airplane.

If Al Gore hiked across the country I would take him more seriously but he jets around the world and parties with Hollywood types but tells me I am not allowed to burn gas?

Do I dump raw sewage into the river to raise awareness of water pollution?

[/quote]

algore as a champion of this cause is like electing reckless as spokesman for Weight Watchers.

JeffR

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Malevolence wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
These people are so phony.

Why would they emit all that CO2 to fly up there?

This has got to be the lamest argument against global warming activism. Don’t get me wrong. I think Global Warming is bullshit. Climate change is real enough, but as far as being caused by man, jury is still out. At best, we aren’t “helping”(whatever that means) as much as we could be, but the Earth is going to do its thing regardless of our involvement, we are ants.

But, despite that, people still feel the need to say “oh, they fly around emitting CO2, those hypocrites” as if that somehow a) makes them hypocrites or b) invalidates their argument.

It is a bottom-of-the-barrel snipe that demonstrates intellectual dishonesty and laziness.

Bullshit. It is the truth. They want to take a vacation and enjoy themselves yet they don’t want others to enjoy the same opportunities.

Flying and then hiking to the north pole does nothing to raise awareness of global warming. People are already aware of it.

They should scale back their lifestyle or ride bicycles across country. They should not be making useless trips on an airplane.

If Al Gore hiked across the country I would take him more seriously but he jets around the world and parties with Hollywood types but tells me I am not allowed to burn gas?

Do I dump raw sewage into the river to raise awareness of water pollution?

[/quote]

The message is not for ‘the people’, no one is asking you to stop farting, at least, no one with a head on their shoulders. The problem is with large companies that actually produce ridiculous amounts of waste and emissions, that could conceivably tone it down or otherwise alleviate what could potentially be a problem.

The entire city of New york could stop driving, and global pollution levels would pretty much stay the same. It is not about the individual driving around in their SUV or their Prius. The people that argue those points are stupid liberals with no grasp on the real issue.

It is about a growing trend towards negligence towards and exploitation of natural resources for the betterment of large companies that have no interest in curbing their waste if it negatively affects their cost-returns ratio.

Al gore flying around in his Jet is meaningless as far as the ‘fight’ is concerned. But, there is also nothing wrong with it. If he hiked around the country, he would take more time to deliver the message to fewer people. Jetting around is ridiculously more efficient towards getting the word out, and hopefully encouraging people to take up some responsibility and bring change up at the higher levels.

It is not about getting people to stop driving, and anyone that tells you that is full of shit, imo. But, the more people that care about this stuff, the more likely(idealistically) the ones with the power to effectively change things, will listen.

There is a point, where you alienate people and they stop supporting you. Even the most powerful companies know this. But, if the people’s voice can be written off as “eh, throw $5 million to some ‘green’ start-up, and forget about it”, it is irrelevant.

So, are soldiers(and generals, and commanders, and politicians) hypocrites when they war for peace?

As far as dumping sewage in the river to raise the awareness of water pollution. that is not analogous to Al gore flying a jet around to tell people about climate change. If your sewage was a byproduct of the message, and could only be avoided by drastically reducing the amount of people your message gets to. Then it is what it is.

It does not defeat your message. You have to be able to see the bigger picture to understand that.

Similar to how a company makes money. You look at it as an investment over time. Does the risk(your personal contributions to ‘the problem’) outweigh the reward(your solutions to ‘the problem’).

If your message does more to help the problem than it does hurt it(as a byproduct of you traveling to get there) the net effect of your activity towards ‘the problem’ is positive, and you have done more to progress your goal, despite the fact that you have also contributed to the very problem you speak of.

As soon as Al gore is producing comparable or greater pollution at the levels of magnitude he discusses, then you start to have a point. But as it stands, if his words are instrumental in an across-the-board reduction of emissions, then the emissions of his Jet are nullified and irrelevant.

Again, you could choose many things to argue against Global Warming, and how it is not caused by human’s and their pollution. Or you can continue to feel proud of yourself for exposing some ‘great’ hypocrisy, while doing nothing to help your argument.

Also, I would remind you that I don’t believe in Global Warming as being caused by humans. I also think Al Gore is kind of a douche.

I do, however, believe that we are negligent with our pollution, we could be doing better in a lot of ways, but we don’t because it is less profitable.

[quote]Malevolence wrote:

I do, however, believe that we are negligent with our pollution, we could be doing better in a lot of ways, but we don’t because it is less profitable.

[/quote]

I’m with you there. I despise needless polution. Large and small scale.
For one thing, it’s gotten me and every like-minded guy and girl around here all but kicked out of the sand pits, woods, fields and hills once open to 4x4’s, dirtbikes, snowmobiles etc.

But I just cannot tollerate the abject hypocricy.

Read here about the Hummer vs. Prius debate (the Prius loses by the way).

http://www.reason.org/commentaries/dalmia_20060719.shtml

An exerpt from the link…

But the biggest reason why a Hummer’s energy use is so low is that it shares many components with other vehicles and therefore its design and development energy costs are spread across many cars.

It is not possible to do this with a specialty product like hybrid. All in all, Spinella insists, the energy costs of disposing a Hummer are 60 percent less than an average hybrid’s and its design and development costs are 80 percent less.

One of the most perverse things about U.S. consumers buying hybrids is that while this might reduce air pollution in their own cities, they increase pollution ? and energy consumption – in Japan and other Asian countries where these cars are predominantly manufactured. “In effect, they are exporting pollution and energy consumption,” Spinella says.

[quote]Malevolence wrote:

I do, however, believe that we are negligent with our pollution, we could be doing better in a lot of ways, but we don’t because it is less profitable.

[/quote]

I am an environmental engineer. We spend tons of money on cleaning our air and waterways but there is a lot more work to do.

The focus on CO2 is totally misguided and is causing us to lose focus on the real issues.

[quote]JeffR wrote:

I’m actually not making an argument one way or the other. I’m pointing out the ridiculous tendency for foaming at the mouth liberals to pronounce global warming a reality after every heat wave. What happens during artic chills/conferences closed?

Silence. Worse I’ve seen them actually postulate that global warming leads to the ice shelf melting, which lowers the ocean’s temperature, which THEN leads to the cold waves.

Manipulating the facts to suit the theory.

JeffR

[/quote]

So far it seems that local weather extremes in either direction will always be used as evidence for global warming, but never against. Some of those I’ve argued with have even lamented the name “Warming” because it limits their ability to point and say “I told you so!”

Human-caused global warming fails the test of falsifiability as far as I can tell, because there is no possible evidence you can present to a true believer to change his or her mind.

I haven’t made up my mind yet, but I know it’s going to take more than:

[i]Humans emit CO2

  • C02 is bad
  • temperatures have risen one degree in one hundred years
    =
    we’s all gunna die![/i]