Irony?

[KSG_Standard]

Explorers On Global Warming Expedition Stranded in North Pole by Cold Weather

Wednesday, March 18, 2009

 

 

Three global warming researchers stranded in the North Pole by cold weather were holding out hope Wednesday as a fourth plane set off in an attempt deliver them supplies.

 

The flight took off during a break in bad weather after “brutal” conditions halted three previous attempts to reach the British explorers who said they were nearly out of food, the Agence France-Presse reported.

 

“We’re hungry, the cold is relentless, our sleeping bags are full of ice,” expedition leader Pen Hadow said in e-mailed statement. “Waiting is almost the worst part of an expedition as we’re in the lap of the weather gods.”

 

Hadow, Martin Hartley and Ann Daniels began an 85-day hike to the North Pole on February 28 to measure sea ice thickness, the AFP reported.

 

With bad weather hampering supply flights, the team is was down to half-rations, battling desperate sub-zero temperatures and unable to proceed, the AFP reported.

 

"It'll be a relief to get our new supplies," Hadow said in a statement Wednesday. "Until (the plane) does arrive, we need to conserve energy and can't really move on."

 

The expedition now expects to arrive at the North Pole in late May.

 

Reported by the BBC, The Guardian UK, AFP, Bloomberg and Fox News

[Rocky4]

[MReynolds]

Nah...here's an even better example of irony:

 

http://www.riverwired.com/blog/definition-irony-hybrid-truck-pit-mining

[KSG_Standard]

Nah...here's an even better example of irony:

 

http://www.riverwired.com/blog/definition-irony-hybrid-truck-pit-mining

 

 

Now, that is freakin funny!

[Gitfidl]

All they have to do is to get 4 billion people to commit hari kari and the warming will end. 6.7 billion now. Maybe the bird flue will do it. I'd start by volunteering all the Moslem s. That'd get rid of about 2 billion THEN have a bird flu and - wah lah -- mission accomplished. Conventional wars are not deadly enough -- bird flu is. It's still mutating. Nature always works it out. (and Al Gore -- he'd doing all he can too -- and Nancy .. the idiot girl). I'll bet on the birds. (so did Alfred Hitchcock)

[Thundergod]

All they have to do is to get 4 billion people to commit hari kari and the warming will end. 6.7 billion now. Maybe the bird flue will do it. I'd start by volunteering all the Moslem s. That'd get rid of about 2 billion THEN have a bird flu and - wah lah -- mission accomplished. Conventional wars are not deadly enough -- bird flu is. It's still mutating. Nature always works it out. (and Al Gore -- he'd doing all he can too -- and Nancy .. the idiot girl). I'll bet on the birds. (so did Alfred Hitchcock)

 

 

What about just taking the chinese off-world? Then the world would be 60% less populated, and they wouldnt be able to make counterfeits and also that would mean stuff in general wouldnt be as scarce as it is now (you know how a couple of years ago they bought over 90% of the world's production of steel without caring if any other country needed it? That took steel prices to the skies... )

[Californiaman]

Which of the following is the hypothisis of the conditional"

I'll stay if I win.

a) I'll stay.

:- I win>

c) If I stay, I won>

d) I'll leave if I lose.

e) I'll win if I stay.

[MikeRom]

I love how they'll be measuring ice thickness until the end of May.

[MikeRom]

All they have to do is to get 4 billion people to commit hari kari and the warming will end. 6.7 billion now. Maybe the bird flue will do it. I'd start by volunteering all the Moslem s. That'd get rid of about 2 billion THEN have a bird flu and - wah lah -- mission accomplished. Conventional wars are not deadly enough -- bird flu is. It's still mutating. Nature always works it out. (and Al Gore -- he'd doing all he can too -- and Nancy .. the idiot girl). I'll bet on the birds. (so did Alfred Hitchcock)

 

Lets start with folks making idiotic statements like this -

[Dynadude]

It seems that the only people who claim to think MMGW is real, are people with either a monetary stake, or a political agenda.

 

Researchers are no more honest that the politicians. They might not actually believe it, but they'll go along with it for the grants and the political backing.

[MikeRom]

But the real bad thing is the way they are so easily able to shove it down our collective throats. It's a fore gone conclusion anymore, taught in schools now. How ya gonna fight that?

[Homz]

The thing I don't understand is why this has become a political issue at all. Either the science is there and the earth is warming or it's not. And as the scientists go, the vast majority believe the earth is warming. Certainly no one would argue the CO2 levels in the atmosphere correspond to the temperature rise. Furthermore, CO2 and CO are caused by burning. They are also poison at relatively low levels. Lastly the source of most of that poison is oil. Isn't it simply logical to find an alternative nonpolluting form of self renewing fuel. If not for the global warming then just because it makes sense. What's the problem with that. That is unless you want to give all that money to the Arabs. Personally I'd like to keep the money here. IMHO.

[dc3c46]

 

Lets start with folks making idiotic statements like this -

True. I agree. HARI KARI don't work because only HARAKIRI or SEPUKKU works in

the intended way.

Or was "hari kari" confused with "hare krishna"?

Gotta do your homework first!!!!

[Gitfidl]

No matter how you slice it -- you cannot have 6.7 billion (6,700,000,000) (tending to become 10,000,000,000 or 12 billion) and reduce global warming. Reducing your car smog doesn't even slow it down. Humans require fossil energy to make food (farming), package and transport foods -- (even rice moves on trucks), to refrigerate food, heat foods, and then dispose of foods. They use fossil energy to clean houses, make cars, grind up refuse, bury it, purify drinking water, heat homes (survive in cold climates), operate office buildings. Humans make a heavy demand on burning fuels. (cars are a small piece of it and not enough to change anything). More people = more warming. <-- that's an inescapable correlation ... if the planet warms up then it will breed up more disease vectors (mosquitoes, roaches, rats, bacteria, amoeba) and that is ONE WAY nature can change the equation. Or it can infect animals who carry it around (birds, rats, bats,etc.). Wars are not deadly enough (WWII killed 50,000,000 -- the population is 6,700,000,000 and increasing)(WWII was the biggest event in the 20th century). The world population was 2,000,000,000 in the 1980's and 1,000,000,000 in the 1930's -- so you can GUESS which way it is going. So that's enough information to figure this out .. do the math. The answer is obvious.

[Homz]

No matter how you slice it -- you cannot have 6.7 billion (6' date='700,000,000) (tending to become 10,000,000,000 or 12 billion) and reduce global warming. Reducing your car smog doesn't even slow it down. Humans require fossil energy to make food (farming), package and transport foods -- (even rice moves on trucks), to refrigerate food, heat foods, and then dispose of foods. They use fossil energy to clean houses, make cars, grind up refuse, bury it, purify drinking water, heat homes (survive in cold climates), operate office buildings. Humans make a heavy demand on burning fuels. (cars are a small piece of it and not enough to change anything). More people = more warming. <-- that's an inescapable correlation ... if the planet warms up then it will breed up more disease vectors (mosquitoes, roaches, rats, bacteria, amoeba) and that is ONE WAY nature can change the equation. Or it can infect animals who carry it around (birds, rats, bats,etc.). Wars are not deadly enough (WWII killed 50,000,000 -- the population is 6,700,000,000 and increasing)(WWII was the biggest event in the 20th century). The world population was 2,000,000,000 in the 1980's and 1,000,000,000 in the 1930's -- so you can GUESS which way it is going. So that's enough information to figure this out .. do the math. The answer is obvious. [/quote']

 

You ramble much. What was so obvious? Do tell?

[KSG_Standard]

Any time that someone tells me that there is no argument, and the discussion is over, I start to have my doubts. There is NO consensus on man-made global warming. Do some research of your own, and make up your own mind. Or be one of the sheeple that follow AlGore. 5 minutes of research using google provides the following. Don't discount the information because of the titles on the links, look at some of them and see what documentation is provided. Or don't...believe what you want, but the Man-made Global Warming crowd has an agenda, as do their counterparts on the other side. Which agenda is more palatable to you?

 

"Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus..." - Michael Crichton, A.B. Anthropology, M.D. Harvard

All four major global temperature tracking outlets -- Hadley, NASA's GISS, the UAH, and the RSS -- have data showing that global temperatures have dropped big-time. Does this mean that Algore is out of a job? Does it mean that they should rescind his Nobel Peace Prize? Will Algore just jump on the cold bandwagon, or do something more fun? World temperatures, according to the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction, is the chart that is exhibited here -- we'll put this up at RushLimbaugh.com so you can see it -- and you can see the sharp drop over the last year. It is a huge drop. As we reported yesterday, more snow and ice cover the northern hemisphere than at any time since 1966. The 12-month-long drop -- now, get this, because this is crucial -- the drop in global temperatures this past year has wiped out one century of warming. We went up one degree Celsius, we think, in 100 years, in one century. In one year, it's been wiped out.

 

"Over the past year, anecdotal evidence for a cooling planet has exploded. China has its coldest winter in 100 years. Baghdad sees its first snow in all recorded history. North America has the most snowcover in 50 years, with places like Wisconsin the highest since record-keeping began. Record levels of Antarctic sea ice, record cold in Minnesota, Texas, Florida, Mexico, Australia, Iran, Greece, South Africa, Greenland, Argentina, Chile -- the list goes on and on. No more than anecdotal evidence, to be sure. But now, that evidence has been supplanted by hard scientific fact. All four major global temperature tracking outlets (Hadley, NASA's GISS, UAH, RSS) have released updated data. All show that over the past year, global temperatures have dropped precipitously," a degree in one year, ladies and gentlemen. And, you know what? Scientists such as Drew Thornley, he's a policy analyst at the Texas Public Policy Foundation's Center for Economic Freedom and the Center for Natural Resources, and a new Planet Gore contributor chimes in on the inconvenient truth of global cooling.

 

 

New data from these four major global temperature tracking outlets show that world temperatures last year dropped .75 degrees Celsius, large enough to wipe out virtually an entire century of warming. "Multiple researchers have linked global temperatures to levels of solar activity. This all may be due to a changing solar cycle," as we have attempted to explain on this program; as we have gone into great depth on global warming just as we have gone into great depth on the policies of Mrs. Clinton and on her incompetence. This is profound. I have yet to see this in the Drive-By Media. If it ever does appear in the Drive-By Media, it will be portrayed as kooks, extremists, or harping on one year's data. And of course the global warming manmade hoaxers will come out and say, "Of course, we have said all along that we're going to have these drastic impulses and cycles. This could mean that next year we could gain a full temperature in one year, which is why we have to continue to do what we're doing." So despite the fact that the anecdotal evidence has been matched up with true scientific evidence, the faithful who buy into this hoax will not be separated from their faithful belief based on this because they have too much invested in their own feeling of mattering and relevance and contributing and so forth.

 

 

http://www.infowars.net/articles/december2008/101208Warming.htm

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=37AE6E96-802A-23AD-4C8A-EDF6D8150789

http://www.reason.com/news/show/132187.html

http://www.tgdaily.com/html_tmp/content-view-39973-113.html

http://www.populartechnology.net/2007/10/no-consensus-on-global-warming.html

http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/japan_warming_UN/2009/02/25/185606.html

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2008/12/27/headline-2008-year-man-made-global-warming-was-disproved

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/february2007/050207warmingfacts.htm

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/letters/4986915/Man-made-global-warming-will-continue-for-1000-years-whatever-we-do-now.html

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/october2004/261004notreal.htm

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/february2007/120207climate.htm

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/march2007/020307warming.htm

http://www.prisonplanet.com/archives/global_warming/index.htm

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

http://businessandmedia.org/specialreports/2006/fireandice/fireandice_execsum.asp

http://www.businessandmedia.org/articles/2008/20081218205953.aspx

http://businessandmedia.org/specialreports/2008/GlobalWarmingCensored/GlobalWarmingCensored_execsum.asp

[Homz]

KSG

Clearly you to see intent where there is none. I shall use only big words.

I think weather global warming is real or not it is still a good idea to become energy efficient and independent.

Was that to much for you to grasp. Just in case you missed my point here is another way of putting it. We make energy that is good. We buy energy that is bad. Ok... you want to start another fight; then by all means go for it.

[KSG_Standard]

Sure let's work on alternative sources of fuel, but until we find some that work, I'm for drilling for our own oil and gas, and using our coal resources (the largest in the world) to get us through the transistion. You fight if you want to.

[Homz]

Sure let's work on alternative sources of fuel' date=' but until we find some that work, I'm for drilling for our own oil and gas, and using our coal resources (the largest in the world) to get us through the transistion. You fight if you want to.[/quote']

 

I actually agree with that. Imagine that we agree. I do wonder if you would ever admit that.

[Gitfidl]

Homz: You ramble much. What was so obvious? Do tell?

 

It is not rambling, but clearly there are those who do not read much (and many do not glean much from what they read.) That I cannot remedy, but then those complaining seek clarification. When short terse statements are too terse and extended explanations are "rambling" -- what what kind of response is ideal?

 

What is obvious is that IF 6 billon human beings tend to heat up the planet then 8 billion will tend to make it hotter not cooler and 10 billion will make it hotter yet. So there is NOTHING (no corrective living style) that 100 million or so can adopt (not heating their homes, riding the bus, eating cold food) will reduce global warming (which the liberals are going berserk about since Al Gore and the fat a-h from Canada -- Michael Moore -- raised the issue).

 

Their solution to global warming is for YOU to stop consuming energy (not them -- they need it). But you cannot stop consuming energy if you need things that require energy to make (food, refrigerator, stove). But not to worry because it wouldn't make ANY DIFFERENCE anyway -- it would just sell more of their movies).

 

It is THUS an empty "peeve" for liberals to beech about global warming since NOTHING can be done to reverse (except massive die offs of our species). But nothing (except plague) causes mass dies offs. However, that COULD happen.

 

All of that is OBVIOUS.

 

BUT libraries of referencing will not make it more obvious if is seen as rambling. That is also OBVIOUS. So I think it will just go ON the way it is goping and there will be global warming. (isn't THAT OBVIOUS?)

[MikeRom]

Nothing wrong with energy independence and taking care of the environment, global warming or not we should at least want to do theses things.

[Homz]

Homz: You ramble much. What was so obvious? Do tell?

 

It is not rambling' date=' but clearly there are those who do not read much (and many do not glean much from what they read.) That I cannot remedy, but then those complaining seek clarification. When short terse statements are too terse and extended explanations are "rambling" -- what what kind of response is ideal?

 

What is obvious is that IF 6 billon human beings tend to heat up the planet then 8 billion will tend to make it hotter not cooler and 10 billion will make it hotter yet. So there is NOTHING (no corrective living style) that 100 million or so can adopt (not heating their homes, riding the bus, eating cold food) will reduce global warming (which the liberals are going berserk about since Al Gore and the fat a-h from Canada -- Michael Moore -- raised the issue).

 

Their solution to global warming is for YOU to stop consuming energy (not them -- they need it). But you cannot stop consuming energy if you need things that require energy to make (food, refrigerator, stove). But not to worry because it wouldn't make ANY DIFFERENCE anyway -- it would just sell more of their movies).

 

It is THUS an empty "peeve" for liberals to beech about global warming since NOTHING can be done to reverse (except massive die offs of our species). But nothing (except plague) causes mass dies offs. However, that COULD happen.

 

All of that is OBVIOUS.

 

BUT libraries of referencing will not make it more obvious if is seen as rambling. That is also OBVIOUS. So I think it will just go ON the way it is goping and there will be global warming. (isn't THAT OBVIOUS?) [/quote']

 

I gleaned you don't want to do anything because it is totally futile. So then I guess we just keep feeding the many Mideastern countries that would like to see us squashed like bugs. Ok. If that's how you feel that's your right to feel that way. I don't. Thanks for clearing that up.