trapped in ice that is supposed to have melted

'Stuck in our own experiment': Leader of trapped team insists polar ice is melting

http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/12/30/stuck-in-our-own-experiment-leader-trapped-team-insists-polar-ice-is-melting/


yet another fail for the warmists.

another inconvenient truth yet again, it melts in one place and forms in another.

The Penguins must be rubbing their balls and laughing.

A dose of COLD reality: The ironic saga of the eco-campaigners trying to highlight global warming and melting ice caps trapped in the freezing Antarctic

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2532013/A-dose-COLD-reality-The-ironic-saga-eco-campaigners-trying-highlight-global-warming-melting-ice-caps-trapped-freezing-Antarctic.html#ixzz2p99oOlqu



har har har har

            

Flap Gallagher wrote:'Stuck in our own experiment': Leader of trapped team insists polar ice is melting

http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/12/30/stuck-in-our-own-experiment-leader-trapped-team-insists-polar-ice-is-melting/


yet another fail for the warmists.

another inconvenient truth yet again, it melts in one place and forms in another.

Yet 95% of those qualified to analyse the data have come to the conclusion that man is having some impact on the climate! I'm no expert on the subject, but it stands to reason that cutting down trees (the planets lungs) whilst pumping toxins into the air we breath is bound to result in some negative impact.

My neighbour is a local fisherman, he's not taken his crew out for some time, in fact it's storming now, he thinks the weather is changing and the frequency and ferocity of recent storms are increasing, when he can get out he's been noting strange weather patterns and catching more and more exotic stuff.

It does not surprise me that you dispute the findings of the scientific community, you see greed as your god and the dailyfuckwit as his bible.

I'm prepared to keep an open mind, but I would be suspicious if those 5% of scientists disputing these findings were funded by petrochemical companies,,,,,

While the rest of the world is now accepting climate change and moving on the issue, especially in the business sector, ExxonMobil continues to fund the think tanks and organizations who are running a decades-long campaign denying the consensus of urgency from climate scientists and attacking policies to abate global warming.  A major shift by ExxonMobil would send strong signals throughout the business world.  While Exxon isn't the only company funding these organizations, it has played a leading role in several key anti-environmental lobby groups, including the Global Climate Coalition and the American Petroleum Institute.

http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/exxon-secrets/

scrat wrote:

Flap Gallagher wrote:'Stuck in our own experiment': Leader of trapped team insists polar ice is melting

http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/12/30/stuck-in-our-own-experiment-leader-trapped-team-insists-polar-ice-is-melting/


yet another fail for the warmists.

another inconvenient truth yet again, it melts in one place and forms in another.

Yet 95% of those qualified to analyse the data have come to the conclusion that man is having some impact on the climate! I'm no expert on the subject, but it stands to reason that cutting down trees (the planets lungs) whilst pumping toxins into the air we breath is bound to result in some negative impact.

My neighbour is a local fisherman, he's not taken his crew out for some time, in fact it's storming now, he thinks the weather is changing and the frequency and ferocity of recent storms are increasing, when he can get out he's been noting strange weather patterns and catching more and more exotic stuff.

It does not surprise me that you dispute the findings of the scientific community, you see greed as your god and the dailyfuckwit as his bible.

I'm prepared to keep an open mind, but I would be suspicious if those 5% of scientists disputing these findings were funded by petrochemical companies,,,,,

While the rest of the world is now accepting climate change and moving on the issue, especially in the business sector, ExxonMobil continues to fund the think tanks and organizations who are running a decades-long campaign denying the consensus of urgency from climate scientists and attacking policies to abate global warming.  A major shift by ExxonMobil would send strong signals throughout the business world.  While Exxon isn't the only company funding these organizations, it has played a leading role in several key anti-environmental lobby groups, including the Global Climate Coalition and the American Petroleum Institute.

http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/exxon-secrets/

is that 95% of those who incomes and grants depend on it being a fact?

climate change is not the issue, it is the religious fervour of the faithful that it is man made that is in question

Flap Gallagher wrote:
is that 95% of those who incomes and grants depend on it being a fact?

climate change is not the issue, it is the religious fervour of the faithful that it is man made that is in question

So in your opinion, your denial of global warming is not founded alone in the pursuit of greed and your belief in the lies presented by the dailyfuckwit, it is also because those who've spent a lifetime studying the climate are perpetuating a myth to finance their lavish life styles, where as exxonmobiles funding into smearing the facts is a perfectly legitimate endeavour.

All confirming the fact that if it's wrong you'll support it, and you'll defend greed regardless of the facts.

Flap Gallagher wrote:
is that 95% of those who incomes and grants depend on it being a fact?

climate change is not the issue, it is the religious fervour of the faithful that it is man made that is in question

More bullshit from scrotum - 95% of scientists don't believe this Shiite. I've challenged her before to pair the cite for this and she never has so now notice she has changed this to scientists who are qualified to interpret.......guess what - most scientists can interpret a scientific paper based upon the stats (almost universal) provided and there is much buried and disproving as proving.

But guess what - THOSE scientists don't get government grants. Who'd of thunk it?

Greed???

Anything that is green costs more, even Governments tried to get on the money bandwagon. A bit like organic food... don't shell out on fertilizer and pesticides and bingo!  Charge more for misshapen fruit and veg.  Then claim the price increase is because the yield is low, what utter bollocks.

So can someone explain to me the causes (whodunnit in other words) of all the other fairly sudden and violent changes in the climate in centuries and ages past when there were far fewer people, no industry, and previously no anything, other than volcanic activity perhaps. Shouldn't we be trying to plan for effects (natural) and not fiddling about with causes (human activity) that probably will have little or no effect on the outcome. Although I agree cutting down forests is not a good thing for the climate or anything else.

Flix wrote:So can someone explain to me the causes (whodunnit in other words) of all the other fairly sudden and violent changes in the climate in centuries and ages past when there were far fewer people, no industry, and previously no anything,  other than volcanic activity perhaps. Shouldn't we be trying to plan for effects (natural) and not fiddling about with causes (human activity) that probably will have little or no effect on the outcome. Although I agree cutting down forests is not a good thing for the climate or anything else.

Hurrah! This stuff is nothing other than human arrogance and excuse for taxing people. Every year thousands of Climategate liars get on planes to go to conferences. If they believed their hypothesis they would never, ever get on a plane again.

Not exploiting precious resources is one thing..............this scam is just that, a scam

scrat wrote:

Flap Gallagher wrote:
is that 95% of those who incomes and grants depend on it being a fact?

climate change is not the issue, it is the religious fervour of the faithful that it is man made that is in question

So in your opinion, your denial of global warming is not founded alone in the pursuit of greed and your belief in the lies presented by the dailyfuckwit, it is also because those who've spent a lifetime studying the climate are perpetuating a myth to finance their lavish life styles, where as exxonmobiles funding into smearing the facts is a perfectly legitimate endeavour.

All confirming the fact that if it's wrong you'll support it, and you'll defend greed regardless of the facts.

climate change/ global warming or what ever buzz word is being used today because all the others have fallen by the wayside is not in dispute, it is the man made aspect that is driving the whole industry and the back door redistribution of wealth which is the real purpose of this whole nonsense.


It is not founded on any science that can be modelled. so it has not been proved.

Sister Mary wrote:Greed???

Anything that is green costs more, even Governments tried to get on the money bandwagon. A bit like organic food... don't shell out on fertilizer and pesticides and bingo!  Charge more for misshapen fruit and veg.  Then claim the price increase is because the yield is low, what utter bollocks.

the very fact that every penny that is raised on these green taxes does not get spent on green projects and research convinces me that the whole thing is a revenue raising con designed to make people feel fluffy about being taxed into the stone age.

Flix wrote:So can someone explain to me the causes (whodunnit in other words) of all the other fairly sudden and violent changes in the climate in centuries and ages past when there were far fewer people, no industry, and previously no anything,  other than volcanic activity perhaps. Shouldn't we be trying to plan for effects (natural) and not fiddling about with causes (human activity) that probably will have little or no effect on the outcome. Although I agree cutting down forests is not a good thing for the climate or anything else.

there is a massive ball of fusing hydrogen in the sky, that is the cause of it all. Sometimes it gets hotter sometimes it gets cooler.
IT drives the climate

Flap Gallagher wrote:
climate change/ global warming or what ever buzz word is being used today because all the others have fallen by the wayside is not in dispute, it is the man made aspect that is driving the whole industry and the back door redistribution of wealth which is the real purpose of this whole nonsense.


It is not founded on any science that can be modelled. so it has not been proved.

Such as global warming.....and then the globe reversed! Con......they know it so reinvented it

Flap Gallagher wrote:'Stuck in our own experiment': Leader of trapped team insists polar ice is melting

http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/12/30/stuck-in-our-own-experiment-leader-trapped-team-insists-polar-ice-is-melting/


yet another fail for the warmists.

another inconvenient truth yet again, it melts in one place and forms in another.

       


Oh my is this your evidence against countless scientists now dean?


Climate change may be far worse than scientists thought, causing global temperatures to rise by at least 4 degrees Celsius by 2100, or about 7.2 degrees Fahrenheit, according to a new study.

The study, published in the journal Nature, takes a fresh look at clouds' effect on the planet, according to a report by The Guardian. The research found that as the planet heats, fewer sunlight-reflecting clouds form, causing temperatures to rise further in an upward spiral.

That number is double what many governments agree is the threshold for dangerous warming. Aside from dramatic environmental shifts like melting sea ice, many of the ills of the modern world -- starvation, poverty, war and disease -- are likely to get worse as the planet warms.

"4C would likely be catastrophic rather than simply dangerous," lead researcher Steven Sherwood told the Guardian. "For example, it would make life difficult, if not impossible, in much of the tropics, and would guarantee the eventual melting of the Greenland ice sheet and some of the Antarctic ice sheet."

Another report released earlier this month said the abrupt changes caused by rapid warming should be cause for concern, as many of climate change's biggest threats are those we aren't ready for.

In September, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said it was "extremely likely" that human activity was the dominant cause of global warming, or about 95 percent certain -- often the gold standard in scientific accuracy.

"If this isn't an alarm bell, then I don't know what one is. If ever there were an issue that demanded greater cooperation, partnership, and committed diplomacy, this is it," U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said after the IPCC report was released.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/31/climate-change-worse_n_4523828.html

I think I will take note of what experts say, you know where you before told me to do the same with a script writer.

They meet at Bohemian Grove and the Bilderberg Group and come up with these policies which have to be passed down the next section of the pyramid of social control and power and us minions cannot see what or why, we just follow.

Phil Didge wrote:

Flap Gallagher wrote:'Stuck in our own experiment': Leader of trapped team insists polar ice is melting

http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/12/30/stuck-in-our-own-experiment-leader-trapped-team-insists-polar-ice-is-melting/


yet another fail for the warmists.

another inconvenient truth yet again, it melts in one place and forms in another.

       


Oh my is this your evidence against countless scientists now dean?


Climate change may be far worse than scientists thought, causing global temperatures to rise by at least 4 degrees Celsius by 2100, or about 7.2 degrees Fahrenheit, according to a new study.

The study, published in the journal Nature, takes a fresh look at clouds' effect on the planet, according to a report by The Guardian. The research found that as the planet heats, fewer sunlight-reflecting clouds form, causing temperatures to rise further in an upward spiral.

That number is double what many governments agree is the threshold for dangerous warming. Aside from dramatic environmental shifts like melting sea ice, many of the ills of the modern world -- starvation, poverty, war and disease -- are likely to get worse as the planet warms.

"4C would likely be catastrophic rather than simply dangerous," lead researcher Steven Sherwood told the Guardian. "For example, it would make life difficult, if not impossible, in much of the tropics, and would guarantee the eventual melting of the Greenland ice sheet and some of the Antarctic ice sheet."

Another report released earlier this month said the abrupt changes caused by rapid warming should be cause for concern, as many of climate change's biggest threats are those we aren't ready for.

In September, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said it was "extremely likely" that human activity was the dominant cause of global warming, or about 95 percent certain -- often the gold standard in scientific accuracy.

"If this isn't an alarm bell, then I don't know what one is. If ever there were an issue that demanded greater cooperation, partnership, and committed diplomacy, this is it," U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said after the IPCC report was released.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/31/climate-change-worse_n_4523828.html

I think I will take note of what experts say, you know where you before told me to do the same with a script writer.

franky as they cannot get the weather right tomorrow I hold little faith in them getting it right 85 years in advance.

every prediction they have made has been woefully wrong, but if you are happy to throw your money at them then good for you.

Flap Gallagher wrote:
franky as they cannot get the weather right tomorrow I hold little faith in them getting it right 85 years in advance.

every prediction they have made has been woefully wrong, but if you are happy to throw your money at them then good for you.

The weather can change like the wind but one thing we have seen is the weather start to get progressively worse year on year.
To deny the basic fact we are damaging our planet and to not take heed from this is daft, you place not only your children's future in danger but others off the back of not anything scientific but placing your belief in skeptics

Flap Gallagher wrote:
there is a massive ball of fusing hydrogen in the sky, that is the cause of it all. Sometimes it gets hotter sometimes it gets cooler.
IT drives the climate

Exactly and has done so since time immemorial, sometimes the earth's wobble is greater or lesser and that makes a difference, people keep pointing to increasing power of storms, I can remember some pretty big storms when I was a child when we had floods, damage to buildings people killed, we didn't seem so pre occupied with it though we all know what happened to the Armarda that must have been a fair storm. There's evidence of climate change in ice cores and earth cores on land and sea things must have got pretty difficult then - except of course humans weren't around to record most of them. I know the Sahara was once a savannah from rock paintings showing rivers and animals to change that into a desert is a pretty impressive climate change however long it took and apparently it wasn't very long. I think we are taking too much credit for altering the climate.

Phil Didge wrote:

The weather can change like the wind but one thing we have seen is the weather start to get progressively worse year on year.
To deny the basic fact we are damaging our planet and to not take heed from this is daft, you place not only your children's future in danger but others off the back of not anything scientific but placing your belief in skeptics

An admission and a denial in the same post.......come on Didge! There is NO evidence humans are damaging the planet

Yes the weather changes - the climate is a on a different, path to what humans thoughts...but the weather and the climate has always changed so why the arrogance to think we are doing it?

globes
cycle! It's a few thousand miles rather than a few hundred!

Phil Didge wrote:

Flap Gallagher wrote:
franky as they cannot get the weather right tomorrow I hold little faith in them getting it right 85 years in advance.

every prediction they have made has been woefully wrong, but if you are happy to throw your money at them then good for you.

The weather can change like the wind but one thing we have seen is the weather start to get progressively worse year on year.
To deny the basic fact we are damaging our planet and to not take heed from this is daft, you place not only your children's future in danger but others off the back of not anything scientific but placing your belief in skeptics

when people alter the figures to fit their facts then something is very wrong.

Bollocks Didge, your time scale for assessing the weather is out by a few thousand years. 


The fact remains that even if there was climate change made by man.... we could never stop it from happening.  Much of our lives involve hydro-carbon products and we even breathe out CO2.  Switch to an electric car...?  Yeah and where does the electricity come from, and what are the materials in green cars....?

Sister Mary wrote:Bollocks Didge, your time scale for assessing the weather is out by a few thousand years. 


The fact remains that even if there was climate change made by man.... we could never stop it from happening.  Much of our lives involve hydro-carbon products and we even breathe out CO2.  Switch to an electric car...?  Yeah and where does the electricity come from, and what are the materials in green cars....?

probably one of the greenest cars is an old landrover.
It will last 50 years and is made from far greener materials than the 6000 or so batteries that go into an electric car.

from what i'v read,the batteries" in green" cars only last about 5 yrs and will cost around £5000 to replace.who is going to spend £5000 on a s/h car?

nicko wrote:from what i'v read,the batteries" in green" cars only last about 5 yrs and will cost around £5000 to replace.who is going to spend £5000 on a s/h car?

£5000 is a good deal, prius batteries were about £11000, and 5 years is what you are going to get out of them, if you are lucky, if you constantly run them down or fast charge them.
I did read that you could sort of rent the batteries on a lease system.
It does rather increase the running costs of a vehicle if you have to factor in between £5000 to £10000 every 5 years and would affect the second hand market I imagine.