Global Warming Study Ship Stuck in Ice

Somewhere far, far to the south where it is summer, a group of global warming scientists are trapped in the Antarctic ice. If you missed the irony of that situation, it is because much of the mainstream media has glossed over that rather inconvenient bit of hilarity. As an example here is an Associated Press story that avoids mentioning the real mission of the scientists aboard the icebound Russian ship:

So what was the exact mission of these scientists? AP is rather vague about this reporting only:

Um, there is a bit more to the expedition than merely following in the footsteps of a century-old voyage. But what that mission really is, AP won't say. If AP is vague about the mission's purpose, Reuters provides even less information.

Since the MSM isn't forthcoming as to the real purpose of those scientists traveling to Antarctica, we turn to Whats Up With That for more insight:

It seems they found out what the “environmental changes taking place in the south.” are.

Finally, National Geographic bluntly states the mission purpose:

Ah, so now we see why the MSM reluctance to flat out state why the scientists are in the Antarctic. Anything to avoid an inconvenient (but accurate) headline like this:

GLOBAL WARMING SCIENTISTS TRAPPED IN ANTARCTIC ICE

Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/pj-gla...cientists-trapped-antarctic-ice#ixzz2oyeaOnbU

 

Hilariously transparent, are they not?

 

Firstly it is from "let's pick a parcel of cherries" Jonova

Secondly NORTHERN Hemisphere does not equal global climate

Thirdly this is SNOW cover - and that relies on precipitation which, actually also relies on multiple factors

fourthly - the source Jonova got this from SPPI - A known oil funded site

 

And, FINALLY, it is SUMMER in the Southern Hemisphere, where the Warmist Expedition is trapped in the ice....

 

Gee and here I was believing the OTHER stories, including our own which since this is Aussie I do tend to believe more, that it was primarily an expedition to retrace Mawson's steps

And I am betting that one of the reasons you have not heard of THAT is that no-one outside of Australia and NZ have heard of Douglas Mawson

- - - Updated - - -

Oh! Please, please tell me you are implying that all the ice and blizzards in stop at the south pole come summer


please tell me that…….

 

So, do you think Rutgers University is an oil funded site? I did post the raw data and also another graph I made off the raw data? Well, let's face it, you really cannot address issues like that.

 

Led by a "climate scientist". So you think they are just Mawson groupies?

 

http://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/table_area.php?ui_set=0&ui_sort=0

 

No, you haven't 'got it', and that's your problem! When you learn to distinguish climate from weather we might have an educated conversation. Get started...

 

Why sure...just like "snowfall will be a thing of the past by 2012"...right?

Oh..we've "got it" allright, it;s just you and the other Warmist deluded, who just cannot grasp that your religion is DEAD, and keep trying to rasie it back up:

 

Do I got it?

Climate confirms man made global warming and weather doesn't. Right?

 

Man made global warming is not confirmed. The theories of CAGW are based on the current failed models. The IPCC has reduced it's project each year. Why? Because temp readings are not confirming their projections.

 

Yes, but doesn't the data that seems to conflict with global warming get put into the 'weather' category?
And isn't weather quite separate from climate?

 

Weather is just what happens. Climate is just what usually happens...

 

Global warming is a long-term effect. Weather is a short-term effect.

 

Weather is a single event

CLIMATE is a trend that shows the most common weather

While I am here - and because this is always muddled by denialists

Also please learn global does not equal local and journalists are not scientists

 

Global warming , the science that adjust constantly to explain the dominos that don't fall in order .

 

So anything that sugests that there is no catastrophic global warming is considered short-term and anything that leaves open the possibility that there may be a catastrophic anthropogenic global climate change is considered to be long-term. Got it.

 

But they do fall in order from a scientific perspective. It isn't science which is contesting global warming: it's politics. Precisely like it was politics when the same thing happened with tobacco research.

 

So, what part of "trend" is difficult to understand??

 

You are arbitrarily redefining the meaning of short-term. Stop it. If you need to know what short-term means then look it up on Wikipedia.

 

I'll be dropping my end of your chain now.