Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Global Warming Scientist Get Stuck in Growing Antartic Ice
- Thread starter Publius1787
- Start date
asterism
Congress != Progress
Such hostility, all because you got caught making shit up. What are you, some sort of AGW scientist?
I am a parent. I don't know about you, but it creates in me a concern about the future. It leads me to view the opinions of people like FlaCalTenn and yourself as threats to my children.
And I made up nothing.
It's a very simple task for you to post the links where you read that his was just a cruise ship and that scientists had no input in planning the route.
As a parent, you should set an example by not making shit up.
asterism
Congress != Progress
Purchasing mandatory healthcare coverage is no more a tax than purchasing mandatory vehicle insurance or malpractice insurance or businesses having to post bonds.
Personally, I favored a single-payer system financed by an increase in income taxes. So you're not going to get me too excited by griping about PPACA. It just tells me, along with your sig, that you really and truly hate the freedom of expression and mutual compassion on which this country was founded.
Why do you live here? Surely you'd be happier in North Korea or Burma or perhaps Venezuela. Have you checked them out? I know they'd love to have you.
You obviously don't understand health insurance.
- Banned
- #105
You obviously don't have the faintest idea what I do and do not know.
I already told you that I have no idea from what specific article I took the information I posted, but if I find articles carrying similar information, are you going to apologize for calling me a liar?
I already told you that I have no idea from what specific article I took the information I posted, but if I find articles carrying similar information, are you going to apologize for calling me a liar?
- Banned
- #106
Every one of these articles describe the vessel as a cruise ship and/or the trip as a cruise. The ship is carrying "passengers". Passengers do not control the vessel on which they ride.
Helicopter rescue possible for ship stuck off Antarctica
Cruise Ship Spends Christmas Stuck in Ice Off Antarctica | ABC News Blogs - Yahoo
Antarctic Ship Passengers To Be Rescued By Chinese Helicopter | TIME.com
Cruise ship stuck in ice near Antarctica | WTVR.com
Antarctic cruise ship passengers stranded after vessel gets stuck in ice south of Hobart - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4m5H916ZwpQ]Journalist on Conditions Aboard Stuck Antarctic Cruise Ship - YouTube[/ame]
Cruise ship stuck in Antarctica ice over holiday - Videos - CBS News
Helicopter rescue possible for ship stuck off Antarctica
Cruise Ship Spends Christmas Stuck in Ice Off Antarctica | ABC News Blogs - Yahoo
Antarctic Ship Passengers To Be Rescued By Chinese Helicopter | TIME.com
Cruise ship stuck in ice near Antarctica | WTVR.com
Antarctic cruise ship passengers stranded after vessel gets stuck in ice south of Hobart - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4m5H916ZwpQ]Journalist on Conditions Aboard Stuck Antarctic Cruise Ship - YouTube[/ame]
Cruise ship stuck in Antarctica ice over holiday - Videos - CBS News
Most of those have connection with support for the fairy tale story of global warming
asterism
Congress != Progress
You obviously don't have the faintest idea what I do and do not know.
I already told you that I have no idea from what specific article I took the information I posted, but if I find articles carrying similar information, are you going to apologize for calling me a liar?
Provide evidence to substantiate that you aren't flat out lying and I'll apologize for calling you a liar.
Last edited:
asterism
Congress != Progress
Every one of these articles describe the vessel as a cruise ship and/or the trip as a cruise. The ship is carrying "passengers". Passengers do not control the vessel on which they ride.
Helicopter rescue possible for ship stuck off Antarctica
The first words of this article are:
"The passengers on a Russian-flagged research ship stranded in ice off Antarctica will be evacuated by a Chinese helicopter once weather permits,"
So that one doesn't work. Also, the date of this first article is 12/30/13 which is two days after you first made your claim.
Now this one would give you some credibility, if the second sentence hadn't said this:
"The Russian-operated Akademik Shokalskiy, an ice-strengthened vessel built in 1984 for oceanographic research,"
This article also has a date after you first made your statement so you can't claim to have read it before telling us that this was not a scientific expedition.
Now this one might have given you your out. It's from before your statement (now proven to be absolutely bogus) and it even says "Cruise ship" in the title. But this part tells me that you didn't actually read it:
"Passengers on a Russian polar expedition ship off Antarctica are getting a whiter Christmas than they probably wanted."
Given your position as someone who constantly tells others how little they know about science merely because they disagree with you, it's not a leap to expect that someone as knowledgeable and educated as you in one of the fields of Science knows what "expedition ship" means.
So fail again on your part.
This one, brief, 7 sentence article might have been your out. If you could claim that your level concern in this matter was limited to reading this one short article and that between the time you read this thread and the time you made your response you had not chose to inform yourself any more on the matter, then I would offer my apologies.
If you were this unconcerned and uninformed you would not be liar you would be an ignoramous.
However, you have made statements that demonstrate more about you. Why post articles dated after your claim if these are sources you say you read that formed the opinion you stated?
That video was posted yesterday, 3 days after you made your claim. Also you obviously weren't paying attention because starting at 25 seconds into it the journalist on camera describes the ship as a "research vessel."
This blurb along with the other short article would have sufficed to demonstrate your ignorance and not an intent to lie. But when you went overboard by citing sources dating after your initial claim, they don't bolster your argument.
It appears you have become a victim of your own failure to analyze facts and data. I'll remember this when I read more from you.
No apology from me, you have compounded your lie.
Why is it that every time I encounter true believers in the absolute nature of AGW that they expose themselves to be willing to be loose with the truth?
Last edited:
- Banned
- #111
Every one of these articles describe the vessel as a cruise ship and/or the trip as a cruise. The ship is carrying "passengers". Passengers do not control the vessel on which they ride.
Helicopter rescue possible for ship stuck off Antarctica
The first words of this article are:
"The passengers on a Russian-flagged research ship stranded in ice off Antarctica will be evacuated by a Chinese helicopter once weather permits,"
So that one doesn't work. Also, the date of this first article is 12/30/13 which is two days after you first made your claim.
Now this one would give you some credibility, if the second sentence hadn't said this:
"The Russian-operated Akademik Shokalskiy, an ice-strengthened vessel built in 1984 for oceanographic research,"
This article also has a date after you first made your statement so you can't claim to have read it before telling us that this was not a scientific expedition.
Now this one might have given you your out. It's from before your statement (now proven to be absolutely bogus) and it even says "Cruise ship" in the title. But this part tells me that you didn't actually read it:
"Passengers on a Russian polar expedition ship off Antarctica are getting a whiter Christmas than they probably wanted."
Given your position as someone who constantly tells others how little they know about science merely because they disagree with you, it's not a leap to expect that someone as knowledgeable and educated as you in one of the fields of Science knows what "expedition ship" means.
So fail again on your part.
This one, brief, 7 sentence article might have been your out. If you could claim that your level concern in this matter was limited to reading this one short article and that between the time you read this thread and the time you made your response you had not chose to inform yourself any more on the matter, then I would offer my apologies.
If you were this unconcerned and uninformed you would not be liar you would be an ignoramous.
However, you have made statements that demonstrate more about you. Why post articles dated after your claim if these are sources you say you read that formed the opinion you stated?
That video was posted yesterday, 3 days after you made your claim. Also you obviously weren't paying attention because starting at 25 seconds into it the journalist on camera describes the ship as a "research vessel."
This blurb along with the other short article would have sufficed to demonstrate your ignorance and not an intent to lie. But when you went overboard by citing sources dating after your initial claim, they don't bolster your argument.
It appears you have become a victim of your own failure to analyze facts and data. I'll remember this when I read more from you.
No apology from me, you have compounded your lie.
Why is it that every time I encounter true believers in the absolute nature of AGW that they expose themselves to be willing to be loose with the truth?
I hope you enjoyed yourself. Given the amount of time you've spent on it, you'd better have.
Allow me to point out, however, that I never claimed ANY of those were the particular article I read.
- Banned
- #112
No links to prove you aren't lying about it being a cruise ship huh?And you think they should have? Funnier!
That the thing was built to be a Arctic research vessel can be seen from any photograph. That it was being used as a "cruise" ship is supported by all the articles to which I linked.
How about some evidence from YOU that indicates any of the scientists on board were directing its movements? Those would be links that could prove YOU weren't lying when you tell us otherwise.
You claimed them when you used the links to support your position that the ship is a cruise ship .Every one of these articles describe the vessel as a cruise ship and/or the trip as a cruise. The ship is carrying "passengers". Passengers do not control the vessel on which they ride.
Helicopter rescue possible for ship stuck off Antarctica
The first words of this article are:
"The passengers on a Russian-flagged research ship stranded in ice off Antarctica will be evacuated by a Chinese helicopter once weather permits,"
So that one doesn't work. Also, the date of this first article is 12/30/13 which is two days after you first made your claim.
Now this one would give you some credibility, if the second sentence hadn't said this:
"The Russian-operated Akademik Shokalskiy, an ice-strengthened vessel built in 1984 for oceanographic research,"
This article also has a date after you first made your statement so you can't claim to have read it before telling us that this was not a scientific expedition.
Now this one might have given you your out. It's from before your statement (now proven to be absolutely bogus) and it even says "Cruise ship" in the title. But this part tells me that you didn't actually read it:
"Passengers on a Russian polar expedition ship off Antarctica are getting a whiter Christmas than they probably wanted."
Given your position as someone who constantly tells others how little they know about science merely because they disagree with you, it's not a leap to expect that someone as knowledgeable and educated as you in one of the fields of Science knows what "expedition ship" means.
So fail again on your part.
This one, brief, 7 sentence article might have been your out. If you could claim that your level concern in this matter was limited to reading this one short article and that between the time you read this thread and the time you made your response you had not chose to inform yourself any more on the matter, then I would offer my apologies.
If you were this unconcerned and uninformed you would not be liar you would be an ignoramous.
However, you have made statements that demonstrate more about you. Why post articles dated after your claim if these are sources you say you read that formed the opinion you stated?
That video was posted yesterday, 3 days after you made your claim. Also you obviously weren't paying attention because starting at 25 seconds into it the journalist on camera describes the ship as a "research vessel."
This blurb along with the other short article would have sufficed to demonstrate your ignorance and not an intent to lie. But when you went overboard by citing sources dating after your initial claim, they don't bolster your argument.
It appears you have become a victim of your own failure to analyze facts and data. I'll remember this when I read more from you.
No apology from me, you have compounded your lie.
Why is it that every time I encounter true believers in the absolute nature of AGW that they expose themselves to be willing to be loose with the truth?
I hope you enjoyed yourself. Given the amount of time you've spent on it, you'd better have.
Allow me to point out, however, that I never claimed ANY of those were the particular article I read.
CLIMATE CHANGE: OUR GREATEST CHALLENGE? Events in 2013 showed just how cut off from reality climate-change alarmists have become
- Banned
- #115
Allow me to point out, however, that I never claimed ANY of those were the particular article I read.
You claimed them when you used the links to support your position that the ship is a cruise ship .
No, I did not. I clearly stated that I had no recollection of the source of that information and then stated that all of the linked articles described the vessel or the trip using the term "cruise", which they do.
Allow me to point out, however, that I never claimed ANY of those were the particular article I read.
You claimed them when you used the links to support your position that the ship is a cruise ship .
No, I did not. I clearly stated that I had no recollection of the source of that information and then stated that all of the linked articles described the vessel or the trip using the term "cruise", which they do.
No? Here's what you said
Every one of these articles describe the vessel as a cruise ship and/or the trip as a cruise. The ship is carrying "passengers". Passengers do not control the vessel on which they ride.
Rule of thumb when using a link as support don't try to weasel out when you failed to make your point.
- Banned
- #117
One quote from me is not proof that I did not say something else elsewhere.
When you said "you claimed them", the obvious interpretation was that you were charging I had identified them as my original source. If you want to check me against some point, make certain you're speaking in normal, intelligible English.
When you said "you claimed them", the obvious interpretation was that you were charging I had identified them as my original source. If you want to check me against some point, make certain you're speaking in normal, intelligible English.
mamooth
Diamond Member
Leave 'em be, Abe. Many denialists are, shall we say, obsessive personalities. That is, crazyass stalkers. And they lie, a lot, about everything. Instead of enabling them, stand back and laugh as they go into a meltdown because you're laughing at them.
Even with the best planning a shift in the wind direction can cause serious pack ice problems for ships.
And some of the best climatologists on the planet didn't know this?
Funny!
Just imagine if climatologists could predict every gust of wind. How boring would the America's cup be ?
Similar threads
- Replies
- 1
- Views
- 129
- Replies
- 35
- Views
- 1K
- Replies
- 27
- Views
- 695
- Replies
- 26
- Views
- 403
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 1
- Views
- 5
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 8509
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 483
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-