Well, that doesn't clear anything up because Greenland losing ice is entirely relevant to climate change.

11/17/2009 5:54:25 PM

Like I said, you posted a link regarding Greenland losing ice, he posted a link regarding Antarctica gaining ice

11/17/2009 6:12:42 PM

If you think a ship getting stuck is evidence of a rising trend of Antarctic ice thickness, you're an idiot.

11/17/2009 6:27:39 PM

No, the evidence of the Antarctic ice sheet growing is John Turner's study that says its been growing since 2007

The ship getting stuck is just an effect

11/17/2009 6:33:11 PM

the ship getting stuck is probably only tangentially related, let's be honest here.

11/17/2009 6:34:33 PM

I guess it could be human error by the captain. It's not a cruise ship by the way, as the title indicates. Its an icebreaker ship. Its whole purpose as a vessel is to cut through ice. They either miscalculated their route, or the ice is thicker than it was when they originally charted their path.

Of course if its human error, I wonder why the scientists on board the ship didn't have the climatological expertise to understand what was happening and properly inform the captain...

Honestly, its just as relevant to climate change as An Inconvenient Truth.

I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how non-dangerous it is

11/17/2009 6:37:35 PM

Discussing a stuck ship as it relates to climate change is retarded. With the information given, there is no way to determine why it became stuck.

If you want to discuss growing Antarctic ice, start with the study that shows it, and why it is growing:

http://climatechangepsychology.blogspot.com/2009/04/john-turner-et-al-by-end-of-century-we.html

Also acceptable would be a study showing shipping channels becoming less navigable due to ice, or more ships becoming stuck.

And, by the way, although this is relevant to climate change, it is not evidence against global warming.

11/17/2009 7:01:50 PM

Is Greenland's ice shrinking evidence of global warming? Seems like it couldn't be if you're saying Antarctic ice growing is not evidence against global warming.

Or are you saying whats predicted to happen in the future is more valid than what is currently happening?

11/17/2009 7:04:27 PM

exactly. Current predictability is meaningless, dude. Who cares if the climate models consistently get it wrong wrt to what we are seeing. They'll be right down the road, man, down the road

11/17/2009 7:06:44 PM

^^You can find answers to your own questions. I'm not going to discuss this with the likes of you.

11/17/2009 7:10:07 PM

now THERE is some scientific thinking, right there! That's up there with the likes of Al Gore and James Hansen

11/17/2009 7:13:25 PM

I'M NOT GOING TO DISCUSS THIS WITH THE LIKES OF YOU

I just want an explanation to how ice growing somewhere isn't evidence against global warming, but how ice melting somewhere IS evidence for global warming. That doesn't make any sense to me, but you might be able to explain it since you were quick to say the actual growth in Antarctica wasn't evidence against GW

I don't care about the fact that he says it will continue to grow for 10 years, and then begin to subside. All of that is in the future. Whats real right now is that Antarctica has been growing since 2007. Please explain how that is not evidence against GW

11/17/2009 7:15:14 PM

because natural cycles can only be used to explain what global warming isn't completely kicking our ass. duh

11/17/2009 7:19:51 PM

I thought it was understood that the increased water vapor in the air (from global warming) would create more precipitation in the south pole (ie snow). So, Ice melting and Antarctica Growing are both signs of global warming.

11/17/2009 7:23:53 PM

why would it only be in the south pole?

11/17/2009 7:25:48 PM

That is where the continent that we are discussing is located.

11/17/2009 7:27:38 PM

ok. but, I'm not seeing why it would necessarily create more water vapor. Seems like it would create more liquid water, while the equilibrium of vapor to liquid would remain about the same

11/17/2009 7:29:05 PM

I don't know if this has been posted already, but if Sarah Palin had done this, it would be front-page news in The New York Times and leading the network news.

Al Gore thinks the Earth is actually hotter than the Sun

Quote :

"What follows is an excerpt of the exchange between Tonight Show host Conan O'Brien and self-styled climate change expert Al Gore: 'O'BRIEN: Now, what about ... you talk in the book about geothermal energy... AL GORE, NOBEL LAUREATE: Yeah, yeah. O'BRIEN: ...and that is, as I understand it, using the heat that's generated from the core of the earth ... GORE: Yeah. O'BRIEN: ...to create energy, and it sounds to me like an evil plan by Lex Luthor to defeat Superman. Can you, can you tell me, is this a viable solution, geothermal energy? GORE: It definitely is, and it's a relatively new one. People think about geothermal energy - when they think about it at all - in terms of the hot water bubbling up in some places, but two kilometers or so down in most places there are these incredibly hot rocks, 'cause the interior of the earth is extremely hot, several million degrees, and the crust of the earth is hot …” Contrary to what Gore may believe, according to NASA, it is actually the sun which at its core, has a temperature of 'several million degrees' (approximately 27,000,000 degrees F). The earth on the other hand, is slightly cooler with an estimated temperature of about 9,000 degrees F. One would think that someone who won a Nobel Prize, as well as an Academy Award for his work on so-called global warming would know at least as much as an eighth grade Earth Science student. Luckily for Gore, the mainstream press remains loyal to the left and refuses to cover his ignorant claims, while continuing to push the decidedly unscientific theory of man-made global warming."

http://tinyurl.com/yahm2s2

Video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ns_4pzfOSTc

12/12/2009 5:23:33 PM

the interior of the Earth is actually hotter than the outer layer of the sun, maybe this is what confused al gore.

12/12/2009 6:10:27 PM

nah, it's just an inconvenient truth, that's all

12/12/2009 6:14:39 PM

^^No, its not. Maybe Celsius versus Fahrenheit is what is confusing you.

As for Gore, he apparently again believes it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations

12/12/2009 6:16:48 PM

let's see... outer core is, at most, 6100C. inner core is 5700K. mantle is 4000K. none of those look like "millions of degrees."

12/12/2009 6:25:12 PM

Look, moron's actually going to defend Gore! Sweet Jesus!

What was Gore confused about when he claimed to have created the Internet?

12/12/2009 6:26:04 PM

Sun - Temperature of surface (effective) 5,778 K
Earth - Temperature of core 7,300 K

While not millions of degrees for sure he's right about earth > sun in parts. But then again the human body produces more heat than a piece of the sun the same size. Go figure.

12/12/2009 6:39:14 PM

yeah, wiki says inner core is 5700K. and I trust wiki a lot!

12/12/2009 7:07:18 PM

Quote :

"What was Gore confused about when he claimed to have created the Internet?"

You could always ask Vint Cerf and Bob Kahn:

http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/200009/msg00052.html

12/12/2009 7:49:29 PM

Quote :

"While not millions of degrees for sure he's right about earth > sun in parts. But then again the human body produces more heat than a piece of the sun the same size. Go figure."

Wow, that's pretty interested. I was unaware

12/14/2009 2:21:09 PM

THE TIDAL WAVES ARE COMING PEOPLE!!! VOTE DEMOCRAT OR WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!!!!111

12/14/2009 2:23:50 PM

Gore steps in it yet again:

Al Gore's melting Arctic claim unites scientist and sceptic alike
December 16, 2009

Quote :

"Al Gore stood by his claim yesterday that the North Pole could be ice-free within five years, attracting a storm of criticism from scientists and sceptics alike. In an address to the Copenhagen summit, the former Vice-President of the United States quoted an international report published this year, which suggested that the North Pole could have lost virtually all of its ice by 2015. His comments followed the 'climate spin' row, which broke out after The Times revealed that in a speech on Monday Mr Gore appeared to have exaggerated scientific predictions to make them sound more alarming. [NO WAY! ] Wieslaw Maslowski, a climatologist at the US Naval Postgraduate School in California, on whose work Mr Gore based his claim that there is a 75 per cent chance that the North Pole will be completely ice-free within five to seven years, said that this was a misrepresentation of the information he had provided to Mr Gore's office. Yesterday, however, Mr Gore maintained that one of the most visible signs of climate change was at the poles. 'In the far north we know that the Arctic sea ice decline has also accelerated far, far beyond the expectation of the climate models,' he said. 'The April 2009 Arctic Marine Shipping Assessment, the result of a four-year study by the Arctic Council states, and I quote, "There is a possibility of an ice-free Arctic Ocean for a short period in summer perhaps as early as 2015".' Scientists rejected the claim, saying that it was at the extreme end of what credible science was predicting. 'Over the last two years we've learnt that it's very difficult to melt the oldest ice at the North Pole,' said Professor Jim Overland, a leading oceanographer at the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 'It would be almost impossible for this to happen within five years.' Richard Lindzen, a climate scientist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology who does not believe that global warming is largely caused by Man, said: 'Why would you take anything that Al Gore said seriously? He's just extrapolated from 2007, when there was a big retreat in the sea ice, and got zero.'"

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/copenhagen/article6958290.ece

Quote :

"Nobody is interested in solutions if they don't think there's a problem. Given that starting point, I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis."

--Al Gore, May 2006

http://www.grist.org/article/roberts2/

Maybe Gore was adding in the effect of the million-degree Earth core temps on the Artic ice.

12/16/2009 2:21:46 AM

Global warming ranks last as a top priority: Pew survey
Jan 26, 2010



http://tinyurl.com/y9c48dz

Thankfully, the alarmists' howls are increasingly ignored.

1/27/2010 7:02:59 AM

Yeah I saw this the other day, definitely good news.

1/27/2010 8:31:13 AM

blog post regarding school indoctrination.

Quote :

"Alaska School Authorities: Watching a Documentary Film More Dangerous Than Having Abortion Written by Phelim McAleer Thursday, 28 January 2010 13:51 Our documentary Not Evil Just Wrong is on tour in Alaska. The film asks if Global Warming science is really settled but perhaps more importantly focuses on the damage that proposed “solutions” will have on the poorest people on the planet. One of the highlights of the Alaska tour was a visit to Colony High School in Wasilla where we screened an excerpt of the documentary and took questions from students. Sarah Palin, Wasilla’s most famous resident, did not attend but a large number of children were there and seemed interested and asked interesting questions. Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth has been shown many times, in many classes at the school and the students seemed to appreciate an alternative. However it seems that the school authorities were not so keen on the alternative. In an unprecedented move they insisted that any student who wanted to see an excerpt of Not Evil Just Wrong must have a permission slip from their parents. The school authorities put no such condition in place before screening An Inconvenient Truth even though both documentaries have the same MPAA rating. Perhaps even more significantly, Alaska is a state where the state can arrange an abortion for a student without notifying their parents. Regardless of your opinions on abortion (or the issue of parental notification) the Alaskan authorities seem intent on sending out a clear message. If you want to watch a documentary that challenges the liberal environmental consensus we will introduce barriers to access. If you want to have an abortion parents don’t need to know and we can probably fit it in after gym class."

Pretty distressing news, especially in Alaska. This wouldn't surprise me so much in CA or NY, but Alaska? Sad.

1/28/2010 4:17:52 PM

Quote :

"In an unprecedented move they insisted that any student who wanted to see an excerpt of Not Evil Just Wrong must have a permission slip from their parents. The school authorities put no such condition in place before screening An Inconvenient Truth even though both documentaries have the same MPAA rating. "

and who says that there isn't a bias in the ideas presented in our schools today. pretty fucking obvious with that one

1/28/2010 6:52:13 PM

It’s perfectly rational for a school to stand behind a documentary put out by a group of people who won a Nobel Prize.

It’s is also perfectly rational for a school to require a permission slip to watch a video put out by a right-wing activist organization, from unknown film makers that didn’t have the backing of any scientific organization behind them.

1/28/2010 7:16:53 PM

so according to moron, it would be perfectly rational for schools to stand behind documentaries made by Yasir Arafat

1/28/2010 7:17:46 PM

I don’t think Arafat has made any documentaries, but his prize was not for science, ala the IPCC and Gore’s. So i’m sure there’s some value in an Arafat documentary, it wouldn’t be realized in a science class.

1/28/2010 7:21:32 PM

meh, doesnt really matter

An Inconvenient Truth isn't a documentary anyway

1/28/2010 7:44:23 PM

so, because Gore has won a Nobel Prize, he's not an "activist," despite all of the patently false claims made in his film? And that, somehow, gives his work more merit? The Nobel Peace Prize today is mostly a political shenanigans anyway, so declaring it "Nobel" only heightens the fact that it is politically charged. But, hey, it's fine to put politically charged stuff in front of students, as long as it's what you agree with, right?

1/28/2010 7:45:49 PM

I’m saying that teachers, who aren’t experts, have FAR more reason to feel comfortable showing the Gore documentary, than some crackpot video put out by unknown denialists, with no credentials.

1/28/2010 8:20:15 PM

its not a documentary

and what are Gore's scientific credentials?

1/28/2010 8:21:11 PM

Quote :

"its not a documentary "

tell that to the teachers.

Quote :

"and what are Gore's scientific credentials? "

He has none. But the IPCC, with whom he shares a Nobel prize in science, does.

1/28/2010 8:24:47 PM

he didn't get a fucking Nobel prize for SCIENCE, and you fucking know that. and the IPCC aint doin too hot these days. it seems that you are more than happy to label one side a "crackpot" when you don't agree with it, but will happily ignore the equally questionable material that agrees with your views. Typical partisan douche-baggery, and you know it.

Quote :

"tell that to the teachers."

I was not aware that teachers were the end-all be-all when it comes to deciding what is or isn't a documentary.

Quote :

"I’m saying that teachers, who aren’t experts, have FAR more reason to feel comfortable showing the Gore documentary"

of course. because they agree with it. So they are happy to show it.

btw, you really discredit yourself when you use words like "denialist" to intentionally harken to Holocaust deniers over an issue that is more and more proving not to be settled. When we look around and see how NOAA has been removing cold-weather stations from its temperature models, one has to really question who is really doing the "denying."

1/28/2010 8:43:56 PM

Quote :

"the liberal environmental consensus"

If only such a thing existed.

1/28/2010 9:01:38 PM

A guy I work with sounds exactly like Al Gore.

I don't hold it against him, he is a smart guy and sticks to speaking on stuff he understands.

1/28/2010 9:58:36 PM

Quote :

"of course. because they agree with it. So they are happy to show it. "

haha, wow. So the entire world is in a conspiracy against you know? Have you visited a doctor recently?

LIke most normal people, if they aren't an expert or even reasonably well versed in a field, they're going to yield to the experts in a field. For climate science, the experts all support human-caused global climate change, which is what Gore talks about.

They "agree with it" because the people who would know agree with it.

1/28/2010 10:19:51 PM

An Inconvenient Truth has been thoroughly discredited (something that's widely known), so I'd like to know why false science is being shoved down the throats of the American youth.

1/28/2010 10:53:59 PM

Quote :

"haha, wow. So the entire world is in a conspiracy against you know?"

strawman much? do you find it hard to believe that a teacher would be more willing to show something he agrees with in class than something he does not?

Quote :

"LIke most normal people, if they aren't an expert or even reasonably well versed in a field, they're going to yield to the experts in a field."

I was not aware that Al Gore was an expert in the field

1/28/2010 11:38:04 PM

C'mon you're brighter than this... Gore is closely affiliated with the IPCC, who ARE experts in this field.

1/29/2010 12:15:08 AM

so much so that the made a bogus claim about melting glaciers in the himalayas and the destruction of 40% of the Amazon? So much so that they don't even allow any dissenting opinions in their reports?

1/29/2010 12:33:46 AM

for the record, moron, what is the head of the IPCC's climate pedigree, again? You do realize that he doesn't have one. How can such an organization not even be headed by someone with any fucking credentials on the issue? It just shows that this is not intended to be a scientific panel.

1/29/2010 7:24:57 PM