An extract from the article:
"The metaphor just couldn’t be more fitting: desperate true believers of global warming/accelerating polar ice melt now find themselves trapped by thousands of square kilometers of summertime sea ice that wasn’t supposed to be there.
No picture could better symbolize and communicate the intellectual bankruptcy and disillusionment of a faithful group who refuse to believe they have been led astray. This has to be deeply embarrassing, if not outright humiliating.
It’s reported here that many of the climate science boatpeople are actually from renowned media outlets, like The Guardian, who we can safely assume were onboard hoping to capture dramatic images of vast areas of open sea water, or of calving ice sheets with hundreds of tons of ice breaking off and plunging into the sea hourly. And with a little luck, maybe even some photos of a couple of drowned penguins.
Nowadays true believers find themselves journeying to the extreme corners of the globe in a desperate search for signs of the coming climate catastrophe. Signs are getting tougher to come by.
Personally, while those who set out on this expedition are likely trying to craft an explanation for the wonderful irony in which they found themselves, I find the whole thing wonderfully entertaining, not to mention fantastically illustrative of the enormous lie that is global warming. Two other things come to mind: The group Opus, which had a one-hit-wonder back in the 80s with a song titled Live Is Life, also created a song titled Whiteland that is about this exact issue...the supposed disappearance of the polar ice caps. It really sucks that the music is cool, but the message is so contrary to reality and my own views and opinions. The second thought is that I thought I heard sometime within the last month or two, that new records are being set for the coldest temperatures ever recorded on Earth this year. If these idiots that found themselves trapped in the ice ever espouse this crap again, it will serve mostly to illustrate the extreme devotion liberals have to their causes in the face of all undeniable evidence to the contrary.
For those that think the Almighty doesn't have a sense of humor.
it is quite a delicious story...though i am not surprised that it is not getting bigger play on the national media with this angle
there are many sad parts to the global warming, now "Climate change" hysteria. Not only is it expensive for us average folk, but "science" seems to want to close off debate. Certainly, things that men do can affect the climate in different ways, but when you shut down debate and turn into propaganda, we all lose and cannot learn from facts.
I find the global warming now climate change name change very telling. They were able to name it anything they wanted since they are the ones who made up this scam. They could have named it climate change to begin with but they didn't. After the failed fear mongering on global cooling decades ago they tried again and decided to call it global warming. Only after more failure did they think to call it climate change. If they were actually looking at the facts and not trying to sell some scam to the world climate change would have made a lot more sense.
It also will, I think, eventually cause their slur term "denier" to backfire. Before, they could claim that they recognized global warming, and "deniers," like Holocaust deniers, disputed the indisputable. But skeptics are totally on board with "climate change." Unlike global warmists, they don't deny that it has happened all through human history and prehistory. It's global warmists who deny past climate change.
It's not that they deny past global warming. Its the cause, not the effect which is in question. In the past it seems that the global warming was due to large amounts of certain gasses and particulates being dumped into the atmosphere by large natural phenomenon. In today's case there have been no large eruptions or other catastrophic events that have done the dumping. We humans, however, have been doing exactly that over the past hundred years and more. So, if no one is arguing that global warming/climate change is happening then what is the cause? And if the majority of the problem is natural why would we want to compound the problem by continuing to dump millions of tons of particulates and those certain chemicals into the atmosphere? Wouldn't we want to mitigate as much as is humanly possible the effects we're having on our climate? Wouldn't we want to slow down the progression of aberant temperatures? If not for us then for our children?
Would anyone here like to go breath in that wonderful air over China right now?
"What is the cause?": A theory is not confirmed by the absence of other theories. In science, we construct hypotheses that could, if untrue, be disproved by observation. Then we try to do it, and hope to fail.
Still, here are two competitor theories: changes in cosmic ray flux, and variations in insolation.
"Why would we want to compound the problem?": It has not been established that there is a problem, that we will measurably compound it if it exists, or that there are no other relevant considerations. It would be better to establish these before drawing further conclusions from them. So I'll leave those at least for now.
So the noted rise in global temps is not a problem or will not be a problem should they continue?
Has there been shown to be a rise in cosmic rays since they've been measuring such phenomenon?
I am well aware of how science is 'done'.
What gets my ass in a twist is people who can't even spell science are telling scientists they're wrong. That's as stupid as me telling a pilot how to fly a plane and I have the basics of how to do just that.
Now let's take the possibility that the 'global warming alarmists' are wrong, what would be the damage if they are? If we took steps to reduce our production of atmospheric particulates and exhaust gasses what damage would result? We'd have better air quality globally, less respiratory illness, fewer cancers, ...
NOW, let's take the possiblity that the 'global warming alarmists' are right, what would the damage be if they are? If we didn't take steps to reduce the production of atmospheric particulates and exhaust gasses what damage would result? We'd have more respiratory illnesses, more cancers, more sicknesses, lower food production, fewer species left, MORE dependence on fossile fuels, glaciation, less useable land for agronomy, global war over resources, higher costs of living, ...
Doing a simple risk analysis it would seem that doing something about our impact on the atmospherics of this particular planet (the ONLY one we have at the moment) would be the better risk mitigation effort.
Well put, J.D. No amount of evidence will ever trump emotional need or greed.
If only we were all Spocks. Just enough human to still have emotions, but enough Vulcan to control emotion with logic.