Global Warming Study Ship Stuck in Ice

I have no interest in vague referrals to mythical treasure chests full of evidence which refute me, constructed because the stupidity of your argument is apparent to even yourself.

If you wish to argue about the validity of the consensus, then do so yourself, here and now.

 

Wow. Such childishness.

EVERYONE has already read that the leader of the scientific expedition is a CLIMATE CHANGE professor.

Stop embarassing yourself; all you're doing is providing entertainment for the rest of us.

From the article you CLAIM TO HAVE READ:


The expedition is trying to update scientific measurements taken by an Australian expedition led by Douglas Mawson that set out in 1911.

The expedition to gauge the effects of climate change on the region began November 27 .

The second, and current leg of the trip, started December 8 and was scheduled to conclude with a return to New Zealand on January 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Der....

 

A new survey of over 12,000 peer-reviewed climate science papers by our citizen science team at Skeptical Science has found a 97% consensus among papers taking a position on the cause of global warming in the peer-reviewed literature that humans are responsible.

http://skepticalscience.com/97-percent-consensus-cook-et-al-2013.html

There is the proof of my claim. Now if it's all the same to you, I'll keep making it. Thanks.

 

YOU made the claim that "97% of scientists agree on climate change"..and UNSUPPORTED CLAIM.

Read the FORUM RULES; it is up to you to SUPPORT your CLAIM, or retract it.

 

The topic has already been addressed, and obliterated. If you wish to know, you would have already looked.

Ecolytes would rather not know.

- - - Updated - - -

The topic has already been addressed, and obliterated. If you wish to know, you would have already looked.

Ecolytes would rather not know.

 

YAWN

The Russian expedition ship is carrying scientists and passengers led by an Australian climate change professor. But they may have to wait another day or two to be freed, said Capt. Wang Jiangzhong of the Snow Dragon.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/28/world/antarctica-ship-stuck/

There are 74 people aboard the vessel, some crew members and some passengers —half of them scientists, and half people who paid to assist in the experiments. "We're all just on tenterhooks at the moment, waiting to find out" how long it will take, Turney said by satellite phone. "Morale is really good."

The scientific team on board the vessel -- 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, Turney said.
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/1...o-rescue-ship-trapped-in-ice-near-antarctica/


The scientists aboard have continued their research, recording seal sounds beneath the ice, counting bird populations, noting the algae and lichen on ice and rocks nearby, and pointing out penguins, birds and seals that live along the shorelines of Antarctica.
The scientists were on the second leg of a two-part, two-month-long journey around Antarctica in which they retraced the steps of the first expedition to map Antarctica a century ago, led by Sir Douglas Mawson. The trip has been dubbed “The Spirit of Mawson.”
Fifty-seven people spent Christmas Day aboard the ship, including 22 crew members and 35 passengers. Most of those aboard are scientists, thought he group did open the trip to members of the public with prices starting at $8,000 for a bunk.
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2013/12/ship-stuck-in-antarctic-ice-blinded-by-blizzard/


so one of the reasons that it wasn't mentioned is because it is not a ship doing "global warming" research exclusively. There are some climate scientists on board but they are doing far more than that including reenacting the original expedition to the pole. So right wing lunatics can put the tin foil away.

 

PLease exaplin how, in your clearly math-challenged state, you deducted that "97% consensus among papers taking a position on the cause of global warming in the peer-reviewed literature"...equals "97% of scientists".


From the SURVEY your article cites:


We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers. Compared to abstract ratings, a smaller percentage of self-rated papers expressed no position on AGW (35.5%). Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus. For both abstract ratings and authors' self-ratings, the percentage of endorsements among papers expressing a position on AGW marginally increased over time. Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Looks like it's actually "97% of 32.6%" of "peer reviewed papers", huh?

Once again, by what bizarre illogic did you determine that = "97% of scientists"?

Math much?

Umm...der....duh...

Great job of shooting down your own bullcrap.

 

Good news, everyone! The ice sheets are breaking up and as your official PF.com photographer, I was able to get a shot of it! Here's a pic I just took of some of the debris as the ice is broken apart!

 

I assure you it does not embarrass me in the slightest to consistently prove that you are lying. The story itself discredits your contention that the ship is a "global warming research vessel". It has tourists on board for Christ's sake!

Please stop posting quotes which have no relevance to the false claim I have asked you to prove.

 

Gee...why did you LEAVE OUT THIS SENTENCE?



"The expedition to gauge the effects of climate change on the region began November 27."

More complete, deliberate dishonesty, from the desperate Warmist Deluded.

Funny...

 

nope just saying that the majority of any organization is going to say whatever will benefit them the most, BTW welcome to my ignore list. all your posts seem to be 99.99 %regurgitated dogma and .01% original thought and constructive argument

 

One more time:


From the SURVEY ( I linked to it below, from YOUR "Skeptical Science Warmist Propaganda" article), your article cites:


We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW , 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming . In a second phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers. Compared to abstract ratings, a smaller percentage of self-rated papers expressed no position on AGW (35.5%). Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus. For both abstract ratings and authors' self-ratings, the percentage of endorsements among papers expressing a position on AGW marginally increased over time. Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research

http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Warmist propaganda sites, like "Skeptical Science", know that the Warmist Deluded are TOO STUPID and TOO GULLIBLE to figure this out,and will run around spouting total bullcrap, like "97% of scientsts agree on AGW", and other such nonsense.

Sound familiar?


So, you are still trying to pretend that 97%, of 32.6% of "peer reviewed papers mentioning AGW", = "97% of scientists"?

Seriously?


Too late for you to "stop embarassing yourself"; the depth of the complete nonsense of your posts, has surpassed critical mass.

Your posts are now, officially, a JOKE here.....

 

97 percent of climate scientists who are actively publishing material. I made that clear from the outset, so you are deliberately misrepresenting my position.

This is addressed by the study itself. It wasn't a study of conclusions, but of the abstract (introductory) part of the paper.

This result was also predicted by Oreskes (2007), which noted that scientists

"...generally focus their discussions on questions that are still disputed or unanswered rather than on matters about which everyone agrees"

There is no point disputing (or agreeing with) global warming in the abstract of a paper precisely because of the consensus. You can do it, but it needs to be done through methodology and the presentation of data to dispute the initial data which has led to the consensus.

Once again, that's a straw man. My initial claim was 97 percent of climatologists actively publishing in the field, and I later shortened it for brevity. You are ignoring that I made my position clear at the outset and are deliberately misrepresenting that position based on the fact that I don't want to write out "97 percent of climatologists actively publishing in the field" every time I refer to the study.

 

just leave the ship there until global warming starts and frees them...

 

Once again, your claim that "97% of scientists" has been exposed as COMPLETE BULLCRAP, by your own source, and none of your subsequent "dancing" can change it, or the fact that Climategate ENDED any credibility for the Warmists, or that thge vessel STUCK IN THE ICE, is one a climate change expedition.

You're done.

 

Nobody is arguing that the ship did not contain a party of scientists studying climate. You have consistently attempted to validate the wrong claim You have no grounds whatsoever to call the ship a "global warming research vessel".

Stop printing duff quotes and learn to admit when you're telling lies.

 

No, you are just trying to create the impression that it is by purposefully cherry-picking data. For example, you "forgot" to mention virtually identical results were discovered by Doran and Zimmerman:-

Doran and Zimmerman (2009) surveyed Earth scientists, and found that of the 77 scientists responding to their survey who are actively publishing climate science research, 75 (97.4%) agreed that "human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures."

And also by Anderegg:-

"97% of self-identified actively publishing climate scientists agree with the tenets of ACC [anthropogenic climate change]"

http://skepticalscience.com/97-percent-consensus-cook-et-al-2013.html

 

The stuck ship is a tourist boat, following the route of a famous Australian explorer, and repeating the experiments and observations he made in 1910.

 

so clearly people are lying when they say the climate change aspect of the trip was not mentioned in the press.

 

I think the repeated mentions of scientific staff led by a global warming researcher are implying that's the main reason the silly thing is there, certainly that it's what's mostly paying the bills. There is mention of "tourists" but it's a throwaway word in the context of the article.

That's the last place I would choose to go as a tourist, but on the other hand it's still gotta be safer than being on a Carnival Cruise ship!

 

When the Soviet Union imploded Mikhail Gorbachev became a crusading "environmentalist".
It's the socialists way of tipping over the conventional paradigm (capitalist pigs, and all) and assuming power. Look at the way the UN ruling cabal
lives like hedonistic Czars as they try to implement their agenda for power and control.

Nobody buys the Chicken Little lies of the watermelon left anymore (green on the outside, red inside).

 

This is one of those cases were we just have to wait and see what the future brings. But current warming models are only talking about an average temperature rise worldwide year-round of at most two degrees. So even if those predictions come true, in a century both sides will be saying "I told you so".

 

97% of "77 of the scientists responding" does NOT = "97% of scientists".

Your Warmist propaganda site ITSELF disprovs your claim,and eveyone has seen it.

All you are doing now, is trying to "dance away" from your asinine, debunked claim.

It FOOLS NO ONE HERE.

That might have worked in whatever lameass forum you came from, but ...but you've destroyed your credibility here.

 

Are you really insulting scientists who have the balls to go to Antarctica?

 

It was a joke, dude - chill out. *ahem*

Heck, a few years ago my class was selected to be the one left behind during an earthquake drill, and we were there for a bit while the rescue team looked for us. It took five minutes for my kids to start joking about which one of us we'd eat first.