Discussion in 'Science & Society' started by Photizo, Nov 29, 2009.

  1. rpenner Fully Wired Valued Senior Member

    It's a lie that the entire passenger group was climate scientists. It's a lie that the entire expedition goal was climate research. The purpose of the expedition included:

    It's a lie that there were no tourists on board. Specifically, the public was invited to come along.

    So the fact that some passengers were scientists doing climate research is as about as relevant to the rescue story as a particular fire marshal's appearance American Idol is to a story on an electrical substation fire investigation. It's not particularly ironic that an expedition which is only partly about investigating facts about ice and wind was hampered by ice and wind since ice and wind are the prevailing conditions for any Antarctic expedition at any time of year for any purpose.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    No discussion, no comment, deniability maintained by the poster - the lies and errors and corrupt agenda of the link authors themselves are disowned by the person posting the link;

    which is typical of that poster.

    But another aspect surfaces, of more relevance to this thread than anything on that link:

    a few years ago this movie came out called "My Big Fat Greek Wedding", and in this movie the prospective groom of the wedding meets his prospective bride's family, who all speak Greek. He does not. So in the course of getting to know his future inlaws, he makes a few good faith efforts to learn some basic Greek, say please and thank you and compliment the cook and so forth, and in these efforts he is taken advantage of by his prospective brothers-in-law for family humor - they feed him embarrassing things to say.

    The point here is: after the first couple of these he becomes wary of that source of Greek phrases - they have to arrange increasingly complex circumstances to get him to embarrass himself in public, because he is no longer willing to just repeat - post in public - anything they hand him, on their say so. Granted the real solution - learning some Greek so he can evaluate their suggestions for himself - is out of reach for the short term, but he at least learns to mistrust sources that have humiliated him in public before.

    And this is presented as normal insight, not unusual and superior genius on his part - we expect him to develop wariness as an ordinary guy would, and enjoy the tricks by which the pranksters get around it and fool him yet again. We would be surprised to find him still as gullible five pranks later as he was the first time - that would be unrealistic, a deficiency in the script of the movie, unless the intention was to present him as mentally disabled or abnormally innocent of life somehow.

    So what's going on with Photizo, et al, that after years of repeated public humiliation they continue to post unexamined and unevaluated stuff from these same sources? We don't expect these guys to learn to "speak science", necessarily, but geez - how gullible are they, really?
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. wellwisher Banned Banned

    Attack the messenger is the typical liberal tactic since they can't reason away the message. The point that was being made is why did the media omit this part of the truth? It could have listed all the options, and then allow one to draw a conclusion, instead of stack the deck with half data to avoid any connections.

    Wikipedia search: Akademik Shokalskiy

    Here is the link to the expedition web site:

    You got to admit an expedition to document global warming, trapped by cold, is pretty funny. Isn't it summer there?
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. milkweed Valued Senior Member

    It is funny.

    Maybe not so funny to the australian taxpayers (and others)
  8. rpenner Fully Wired Valued Senior Member

    All use of the term "lie" means a untruth told with either reckless or malicious failure to investigate or a malicious failure to convey facts.

    The very purpose of the is to attack the messenger, or rather to criticize journalists for being sloppy and/or biased. As journalists are not supposed to be mere "messengers" this can be valid criticism. Likewise, why is the sloppiness or bias of author Ciandella beyond review?
    Because "this part of the truth" is not the whole story and doesn't have a causal nexus with the story of the rescue or even the story of the stranding of the ship.
    Ciandella could have linked to authoritative sources on the passenger manifest and the stated purpose of mission at the site you and I both found. Instead he goes to the biased source of one climate scientist's personal blog. Wikipedia cites the same website to back its claim that the purpose was to document evidence of global warming, but the website shows the expedition had more than one purpose and if they pick just one like "find and document evidence of Global warming" then they contradicts your journalistic principles of reporting all sides, right?

    What's funny about a shift of the wind that causes the sea ice you were traveling through to seize up like so much laundry paste melted chocolate to which a little water is added?

    I'm quite clear on what statements of the Ciandella article I find are untrue. Study of climate change, and not just measuring temperatures, was just one of the goals of the expedition. Others included getting baseline surveys of underwater life and studying pollution. Ciandella claims that news stories that refer "to the stranded people as “passengers,” “trackers” and even “tourists,”" are biased, when these are simple factual descriptions of some people, including some spoken to.

    Some will be wildlife trackers and some will be tourists and some will be crew. All those not crew are passengers even if they funded the trip 100%. Some or all of the crew stayed behind and expect to be bored but fine.

    The first hyperlink describes the scientific mission. The second links to their solicitation of actual tourists. These facts have not been contested by Ciandella; he either ignores them or never bothered to find them in the first place. This puts Ciandella in a poor position to argue that journalists are being sloppy or biased -- the actual charge that Ciandella outlines is that journalists are not biased in the direction of his ideology and his sense of irony, but even that charge is weak because conciseness alone is a strong factor for focusing on the rescue and not the mission and there is no causal link between their desire to study the Antarctic with expedition failure in the Antarctic -- both tourists, sailors and scientists encountered the same event.
    Last edited: Jan 3, 2014
  9. Photizo Ambassador/Envoy Valued Senior Member

  10. Photizo Ambassador/Envoy Valued Senior Member

    Exactly; it's hilarious.
  11. Read-Only Valued Senior Member

    Not in the least. It simply shows that neither he nor you know anything about climate change and choose to "slice and dice" the evidence in a dishonest way in an attempt to deny it.
  12. Zeno Registered Senior Member

    Rush Limbaugh cracks me up. He mentions that daily record low temperatures outnumbered daily record high temperatures in the U.S. in 2013. This is true.
    However! He makes no mention of the fact that this hasn't happened since 1993! HA!
  13. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Southern Calif. temperatures set record highs
    Posted: Dec 27, 2013 3:52 PM PST Updated: Dec 27, 2013 3:52 PM PST

    LOS ANGELES (AP) - Southern Californians should keep that beach umbrella handy and hold off on buying new snow skis - at least through the end of 2013.

    The region saw multiple record, or near-record, high temperatures Friday.

    The National Weather Service's Bonnie Bartling says downtown Los Angeles hit 85 degrees at 1:21 p.m., breaking a record set 66 years ago. Long Beach Airport hit 84 degrees, breaking the record of 78 that was recorded in 1972. Burbank tied its record high of 84, set in 1956.
    California Is Running out of Water
    By ALICIA CHANG, Associated Press January 2, 2014 at 10:10 am

    LOS ANGELES (AP) — A swath of California closed out 2013 as the driest year on record, marked by above-normal temperatures and thirsty reservoirs.

    While a drought has not been declared, some communities urged residents to conserve water.

    Dozens of cities saw historically parched conditions this year, setting new marks in record-keeping that in some cases dates back more than a century.

    Downtown Los Angeles received a meager 3.60 inches of rain since Jan. 1, the driest calendar year since 1877. Normally, downtown would be soaked with about 15 inches of precipitation.

    Similarly, San Francisco recorded just 5.59 inches of rain since the beginning of the year, 18 inches below normal. Sacramento is 14 inches below average after receiving 6.13 inches of rain this year.

    The records were not to become official until midnight, but there was not a drop of rain in the forecast for the next several days.

    “It’s been pitiful,” said Bob Benjamin, a forecaster for the National Weather Service in Monterey, Calif. “It’s a concern, but we do have several months to catch up.”
  14. Photizo Ambassador/Envoy Valued Senior Member

    Documenting the slicing and dicing of "the evidence in a dishonest way in an attempt to deny it" is precisely the reason this thread was started back in 2009.
  15. Photizo Ambassador/Envoy Valued Senior Member

  16. brucep Valued Senior Member

    Unfortunately for the human race intellectual dishonesty rules the day. This forum is a good example. It doesn't seem to care what type or how much nonsense gets spewed across these threads. Nice analogy. To bad you have to go there. Thanks for doing it.
  17. brucep Valued Senior Member

    I just received a warning from the moderators for calling an ignoramus 'a ignoramus'. You should be glad I'm not going to tell you what I think of your analysis skills. Linking nonsense seems to be the limit of your discourse.
  18. Photizo Ambassador/Envoy Valued Senior Member

    Who are you that I should care what you think of my analysis skills? You people cannot bear with perceptions of how you appear in all your sanctimonious arrogance. I'm certainly capable of analysis when the situation merits it. I am capable of applying my intellect to any situation I deem worthy of my effort. I'm not emotionally invested in your myth and am not going to be herded into proper thought channels by the likes of you (plural). I think for myself; my 'BS meter' goes off the charts with respect to the whole climate scam/nonsense--especially since it was exposed for the fraud it is back in 2009.
  19. Photizo Ambassador/Envoy Valued Senior Member

    Spot on, Watson.
  20. billvon Valued Senior Member

    So in other words "I can't be bothered to do any research or really even think about it; I have my own religious beliefs and that's all there is to it." Sounds like the mantra of a climate change denier. (Also very similar to the mantras of the 9/11 truthers, the creationists, the Kennedy assassination conspiracy theorists etc.)

    If your religious beliefs are important to you then I suggest you do NOT do any research; reality can be pretty toxic to deniers.
  21. Read-Only Valued Senior Member

    My "BS meter" went off the scale the moment you showed up here. You've done absolutely nothing to reverse it and haven't convinced a single person with your negative outlook. In other words, you are a nothing. Just a big fat looser.
  22. Grumpy Curmudgeon of Lucidity Valued Senior Member

    For the, intellectually challenged among us(who shall remain un-named), here's a little truth...

    For the last 200 years are so man has been burning various carbon containing things we found in the ground(where they're huge stores of carbon were hurting noone). This dumps MEGATONS of carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, plus more megatons of lead and mercury into the air we breath. Co2 is a greenhouse gas, we've more than doubled the natural levels and the planet is getting warmer. This causes CLIMATE CHANGE, places that used to get water get less, places that grow our crops may turn into deserts, storms are more frequent, bigger and stronger(both hurricanes and blizzards), weather extremes get more extreme. And no one should buy any land in lower Florida, it won't exist in 2100. Sea ice(the problem for the icebreakers)is caused by precipitation(weather), not overall temperature. The Antarctic is experiencing more weather around it, so the sea ice increases, but sea ice FLOATS, it is glaciers(especially in Greenland and Antarctica)that determine sea levels. It is not floating except where it meets the ocean and forms icebergs. All the glaciers on Earth are retreating, calving and melting at alarming rates. Islands are already going under the rising waters.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Maybe the retirees in Florida will stop supporting the stupid party(which shall also remain nameless), which keeps denying reality because their bagmen are in the oil and coal business, when their condos start going under.


    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  23. Walter L. Wagner Cosmic Truth Seeker Valued Senior Member

    I believe the ocean rise has been only a few cm for the past century. Islands tend to sink over time. The Big Island of Hawaii is sinking at an appreciable rate. I suspect that is true with Kiribati too, rather than rising oceans. Anciently, we see lots of subsidence (in the Caribbean, Mediterranean, etc.) in earlier centuries, with lots of man-made objects now underwater, not because of rising oceans but sinking land. In other areas, land is rising still following the removal of the overburden glaciers.

    See also: for sea level rises in ancient times. I prefer the stability of the past few millennia to the prior millennia of 7k years ago and before. as has been posted in other threads, there is a lot of ancient workmanship now underwater from before the sea-level rise that ended a few thousand years ago. attributing a new push/increase in sea level rise to solely CO2 appears difficult to prove due to so many present unknowns, even if true.

Share This Page